"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

Leadership

W. and the vision thing

by Heidi Parent
08/01/03

Which person will be the more successful leader? The one who memorizes policy details, oversees everything in the day to day operation of the company, and insists on being part of every decision. Or the one who states a vision, hires talented people who share that vision, and allows them to make the vision a reality. If you said the first, you just selected Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. If you said the second, you just chose George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Both Clinton and Carter were by all accounts policy wonks. Clinton could read over a policy once, ingest its details, and spit them back during a press conference, impressing reporter after reporter. A nice ability, but did it make him an effective leader? I believe history's final verdict will be a resounding no because the truth is President Clinton was so self-absorbed the only vision he had was for himself and his legacy.

In addition to being a policy guy, Carter was also a control freak. He insisted on overseeing everything in the day to day White House operation - right down to personally handling the White House tennis court schedule. The fact that Jimmy Carter's Presidency was one of the least successful in history is a direct result of examples like this. In other words, he wasn't able to focus on the forest because he only saw the trees.

By contrast, and by his own admission, President Bush is neither a policy wonk nor a control freak. As a result he is able to clearly focus on the forest. He has a knack for cutting through the details to get to the heart of a problem. In his book Ambling Into History, Frank Bruni recounts a story that exemplifies this ability in then Governor Bush. During a meeting in the Texas state capital in the middle of a drought Bush was being briefed about plans to build a reservoir. After the briefing went on for about fifteen minutes, Governor Bush finally said, "Tell me how much water we have, how much water we're using, and how much water we need."

This story is a great illustration of what Bush understands about leadership (and what his critics don't): a leader cannot afford to be bogged down by policy and details. After all, that is what a staff is for. Instead it is up to the leader to display a vision and delegate the responsibility to others to get it enacted.

To that end, George W. Bush appears to be running his White House much the same way Ronald Reagan did. Reagan had the perfect managerial style one needs to be a successful President - he delegated. He chose the best people for each position, made sure they all shared his conservative vision, let them know what was expected of them, and let them go to it.

But with this approach, surrounding yourself with the right people is everything. I believe it was Andrew Carnegie who said, "I knew I didn't know everything, so I went and found the people who did." But apparently not everyone agrees with Mr. Carnegie. Take yourself back to the beginning of the Bush Administration. As he was filling his Cabinet positions what did we hear from the cynical, critical, liberal media about his nominees? "Retreads from his father's Administration" and other attempts to criticize him for choosing people who are "smarter" than he is. (Let's pause for a moment. Can you think of any other time when surrounding yourself with intelligent people would ever be questioned? After all, what's the alternative? Choosing imbeciles? Are imbeciles the kind of people a president or Americans would want in cabinet positions? The lower the IQ the higher the Cabinet position?) But as is always the case with liberals, to understand their actions you must understand their motive. With their criticism they were simply trying to perpetuate their claim that Bush isn't capable of tying his own shoes. When the simple truth is that he went out and got the best people for each job; people who were successful in their chosen fields and would be successful in their cabinet posts. And because Bush was wise enough to go out and get the best, we have him and his team in charge during these trying times.

In a recent article I discussed Bush's vision of a world for Iraqis no longer ruled by Saddam Hussein. The vision was his, but his staff made it happen. In other words, he proposed the trip, but others drew the map and drove the car to get there. This approach by President Bush is quite Reaganesque. Both men envisioned a particular future for this country, let the American people know what it was, and with the help of their staff, led us there; despite pressure from opposing groups to abandon their plan. With Reagan it was an end to the Cold War, lower tax rates, and a renewed belief in America. And while President Bush has also stated several, none is more important right now than his vision for a world no longer threatened by terrorists and rogue nations. President Reagan was successful, and based on the resolve he has shown so far, there is every reason to believe President Bush will be also.

"He is, in a difficult time, what the nation needs in a Commander in Chief - simple in his speech, clear in his vision, confident in his ultimate success." - Time magazine on President George W. Bush's handling of the September 11th terrorist attacks.