In my last two posts, I laid out a new definition of the purpose of government, and then gave my 2012 presidential endorsement to Obama. The election is next week, so I have one final post to make about politics before I go back to my introduction of how you can know thyself through evolutionary philosophy.
One of the main criticisms that Romney and the republicans level at President Obama is that while he may be a likable figure (they can read the opinion polls about that) he was just not competent in his first term and struggled to get anything accomplished. Setting aside the fact that Obama did push major health care legislation through, which no other democrat before him was able to do (not for lack of trying), or the fact that republicans with their obstructionism have preferred to compete rather than cooperate (a cheating strategy that must be punished in terms of game theory), this "Obama is ineffective" line of attack reminds me of a theory from change management that I used to work with and think is important to consider. The theory goes something like this:
In any organization, there are two ways you might look at how you are acting. You can decide if you are are doing the right thing or the wrong thing, and you can determine if you are performing well or performing poorly. If you were to set up these options in a typical 2x2 matrix, you would get something that looks like this:
One of the main criticisms that Romney and the republicans level at President Obama is that while he may be a likable figure (they can read the opinion polls about that) he was just not competent in his first term and struggled to get anything accomplished. Setting aside the fact that Obama did push major health care legislation through, which no other democrat before him was able to do (not for lack of trying), or the fact that republicans with their obstructionism have preferred to compete rather than cooperate (a cheating strategy that must be punished in terms of game theory), this "Obama is ineffective" line of attack reminds me of a theory from change management that I used to work with and think is important to consider. The theory goes something like this:
In any organization, there are two ways you might look at how you are acting. You can decide if you are are doing the right thing or the wrong thing, and you can determine if you are performing well or performing poorly. If you were to set up these options in a typical 2x2 matrix, you would get something that looks like this:
The thing that every organization is shooting for is the upper right quadrant - that place where the group is doing the right thing, and doing it well. The two positive attributes lead to a positive outcome. However, a surprising result comes from a close look at this matrix when we realize that the worst possible outcome on this chart is to be doing the wrong thing...well. It's not two negative effects that lead to the worst result, but one negative and one positive. This is pretty obvious upon reflection. It's worse to be running towards a cliff than it is to be crawling toward one. So, ranking the outcomes of action in order of lowest to highest, you get a chart that looks like this:
This tells a much more interesting story about the journey of an organization during a change management intervention. Take a firm in box 1. You can imagine a perfectly optimized company following a particular strategy that will lead to its destruction in the long-term. (Dell? Microsoft? Nokia?) As some people in the organization realize their strategy is wrong, they start fighting the processes and challenging the decision making. Things slow down. The brakes are tapped. The firm moves into box 2. Then, as more and more people swing over to the proper strategy, things start to turn around. However, there will still be people who will resist the new direction. There will be people who either don't have the skill to go in the new direction so it frightens them, or there will be others who are personally embarrassed to admit they were wrong so they continue to fight for their original position. These are the characteristics of a firm in box 3. The company is moving in the right direction, but still being dragged down by some members of the group. Finally, as new results kick in, better arguments are made, and intractable malcontents are forced out, a change management turnaround is completed and some firms manage to make it to box 4. They are doing the right thing and they are doing it well.
This change management story is important for two reasons. One, it gives you an idea of the path it takes to actually get from where you are to where you want to be. This is never an easy one-step process, and this 2x2 matrix shows you why. Secondly, this story gives you some comfort when you are in the middle of a turnaround. Just as you often hear in sports, you sometimes have to "get worse before things get better." Things may get uncomfortable in the middle of a turnaround, people may disagree vehemently over the change in direction, but this is a necessary part of getting to the right end.
Does this story remind you of what we are seeing in the Obama presidency? By the end of the Bush presidency, America was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month, the economy was collapsing, we were in two wars abroad, we had lowered taxes on the rich, income inequality was rising, nearly 50 million Americans were medically uninsured, environmental regulations were being lifted, automobile fuel efficiency was actually getting worse - we were an organization headed in the wrong direction, and in many ways, we were going there as fast as we could. Now, we are turning that around. Did anyone expect that to be painless? Here is one way you could characterize the last several years of government under the leadership of Bush and Obama:
This change management story is important for two reasons. One, it gives you an idea of the path it takes to actually get from where you are to where you want to be. This is never an easy one-step process, and this 2x2 matrix shows you why. Secondly, this story gives you some comfort when you are in the middle of a turnaround. Just as you often hear in sports, you sometimes have to "get worse before things get better." Things may get uncomfortable in the middle of a turnaround, people may disagree vehemently over the change in direction, but this is a necessary part of getting to the right end.
Does this story remind you of what we are seeing in the Obama presidency? By the end of the Bush presidency, America was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month, the economy was collapsing, we were in two wars abroad, we had lowered taxes on the rich, income inequality was rising, nearly 50 million Americans were medically uninsured, environmental regulations were being lifted, automobile fuel efficiency was actually getting worse - we were an organization headed in the wrong direction, and in many ways, we were going there as fast as we could. Now, we are turning that around. Did anyone expect that to be painless? Here is one way you could characterize the last several years of government under the leadership of Bush and Obama:
When Obama came into office, he had the benefit of working with a democrat led Congress and Senate. He changed directions fast. He addressed the economy with a stimulus package, he helped start or continue the bailouts of the financial and auto industries, he wound down the war in Iraq, and he used his political capital to push through the one thing on his agenda that he thought was most morally important - health care reform that will ensure more people do not go uninsured or get dumped by their insurance companies. Republicans refused to cooperate on any of this. Any of it. And they highlighted the fact that Obama simply rammed his policies home (even though the republicans were giving him no choice). This fighting was scary for America and those in the middle decided to slow government down by giving Obama a republican Congress to deal with. Now, the four-year term is up, and America has another choice. Do we continue to let Obama lead in the democrat direction, or do we let Romney return us to the republican direction? If you genuinely thought that Bush had it right for America, your choice is clear. If, however, you just think that Obama is presiding over a messy government right now, and you think that is reason enough to vote for Romney, then I hope this story of what it feels like in a turnaround has changed your mind. Stay the course. Let Obama lead us to do the right thing well.
