Barack Obama's managerial manner bears a striking resemblance to a former Texas governor who aspired to the White House:
Like most presidential candidates, Mr. Obama is developing his executive skills on the fly, and under intense scrutiny. The evolution of his style in recent months suggests he is still finding the right formula as he confronts a challenge that he has not faced in his career: managing a large organization.
The skill will become more important should he win the presidency, and his style is getting added attention as the country absorbs the lessons of President Bush's tenure in the Oval Office. Mr. Bush's critics, including former aides, have portrayed him as too cloistered, too dependent on a small coterie of trusted aides, unable to distinguish between loyalty and competence, and insufficiently willing to adjust course in the face of events that do not unfold the way he expects.
Mr. Obama's style so far is marked by an aversion to leaks and public drama and his selection of a small group of advisers who have exhibited discipline and loyalty in carrying out his priorities. The departure of Mr. Johnson, who was brought in to provide managerial experience to the vice-presidential search, was a rare instance of the campaign's having to oust one of its own in the midst of a messy public crisis.
He reads widely and encourages alternative views in policy-making discussions, but likes to keep the process crisp. He is personally even-keeled, but can be prickly when small things go wrong.
As the chief executive officer of Obama for America, a concern of nearly 1,000 employees and a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Obama is more inclined to focus on the big picture over the day-to-day whirl.
He delegates many decisions, and virtually all tasks, to a core group that oversees a sprawling, yet centralized operation in his Chicago campaign headquarters, which going into the general election season is absorbing many of the political functions of the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Obama stays connected to advisers and friends via a BlackBerry, sending frequent but unsigned messages that are to the point. A discussion that cannot be conducted in a sentence or two is likely to be finished by telephone.
Although it appears Obama works well at night, while Dubya likes to be tucked in by 9.
On the other hand, Obama appears to have a short fuse to a Clintonian temper:
On policy issues, Mr. Obama can have a photographic memory of intricate details, but he often struggled to remember the names of local political supporters he had met. A cool demeanor on primary election nights, even in defeat, can give way to a short temper when a speech text is not on the podium, a loudspeaker crackles or an aide has not brought over a throat-soothing herbal tea.
''Who's handling sound? Who's handling sound?'' he snapped at his staff when a microphone repeatedly went haywire at a campaign event in South Carolina.
But I suppose that's allowed when one reaches the heights where he finds himself today.
One thing I like is that he values order. Does anyone know Obama's Myers-Briggs type? Could we be electing an NTJ?
Most high-level gatherings involving Mr. Obama are held either in his kitchen or at an office away from campaign headquarters, and are expected to unfold in an orderly manner. Written agendas and concise briefings are preferred.
He does not stir dissent simply for dissent's sake, but often employs a Socratic method of discussion, where aides put ideas forward for him to accept or reject. Advisers described his meetings as ''un-Clintonesque,'' a reference to the often meandering, if engrossing, policy discussions Bill Clinton presided over when he was president.
''He doesn't sit there for hours chewing on it and discussing it,'' said Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama who worked in the Clinton administration. ''He's very thorough, yet efficient about it.''
I notice that the quoted advisor didn't call Obama's style as "Dubyesque" either, but it certainly sounds as if there's a similarity.
Isn't it odd that the last three Republican presidents have been hands-off delegators -- think of Dubya, George I and Reagan, all trusting their Star Chamber to get the work done -- while the last two Democratic presidents, Clinton and Carter, have been the polyglots, digging down into the weeds themselves to master the roots of every issue.
Gerald Ford didn't last long enough to leave a real imprint, though he seemed earnestly interested in understanding issues, and Richard Nixon had Bill Clinton's encyclopedic knowledge of policy, while LBJ sensibly relied more on his big-picture mastery of labyrinthine legislative processes than detailed policy points.
More and more, the picture emerging of Obama is a hybrid, leaning toward the Republican penchant for thematic direction and delegation. I wonder if that's what we need. Is it "change"?
No comments:
Post a Comment