You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Home | Sign In | Contact Us | Careers | Site Map | Help


Advertisement

How Obama and Clinton Stack Up as Managers

The conventional wisdom on leadership and management is clear: the first matters more than the second. Warren Bennis’s classic On Becoming a Leader is typical. In a lengthy comparison between leaders and managers, he describes leaders as luminaries and managers as mere mortals. For example:

• “The manager administers; the leader innovates.”
• “The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.”
• “The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.”

My own Center for Public Leadership (at Harvard’s Kennedy School) testifies that the now countless courses, seminars, workshops, institutes and centers devoted to this general area prefer to boast of teaching “leadership” – for leadership is hot and management is not.

Yet we have just been reminded of how important, indispensable, is the role of the manager, even in contrast to that of the leader. For while the stunning success up to now of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a tribute to his promise as a leader, it provides evidence of his capacity as a manager.

Managing Money
Obama not only raised money the smart way (large numbers of relatively small contributions via the Internet), he spent it the smart way. While Hillary Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the early Iowa caucuses and then ran out of money later in the race, Obama carefully calculated costs all along. He did not spend his money frivolously – on everything from outrageously expensive consultants to outrageously expensive catering costs – nor did he have to drain his own bank account as did Clinton to keep the show on the road.

Managing People
If Obama’s choice of campaign manager is any indication, he can pick a good team. David Axelrod has proven to be a master political strategist and tactician, putting together a string of primary and caucus victories on behalf of a candidate who seemed at the start to come out of nowhere. As New York Times columnist Frank Rich put it, “The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done.” Meanwhile in February, after a series of stunning defeats, Clinton’s campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, bit the dust.

Managing Expectations
Was it Clinton’s idea to claim victory before victory was in hand - or was it one of her handlers? No matter. Either way, it was a managerial mistake for her to declare in November (to interviewer Katie Couric), “It will be me.” And it was a managerial mistake to declare weeks later (to interviewer George Stephanopoulos), well before Super Tuesday, that by February 5th the race would “be over.”

The point is that of the three leading candidates for president right now, that is, McCain included, it is Obama who has proved much the best manager. Whether he would prove the best leader necessarily remains an open question. But of his managerial skills – which have been and still are of paramount importance - there can be scant doubt.

* * *
Sign up for the Harvard Business Publishing Weekly Hotlist, a new weekly email roundup featuring the top highlights from HarvardBusiness.org.

Comments

Your comments about Obama and Clinton are on point. In your last paragraph you say, "The point is that of the three leading candidates for president right now, that is, McCain included, it is Obama who has proved much the best manager."

You offer no comments regarding McCain yet you make indicate that he is not as effective a manager as Obama, despite both his military and Senate leadership and management experience.

Seems a bit one-sided (left-sided) to me!

- Posted by Larry Williams
March 4, 2008 12:33 PM

Very interesting comparisons. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on McCain. I think the skills required to be a leader are very different to that of a manager. For example in the UK we had a leader in the form of Tony Blair, now I believe we have a manager in the form of Gordon Brown. Although he is failing at the management bit as well.

- Posted by PPC Agency
March 5, 2008 4:32 AM

Putting aside the issue of "McCain leadership" (with military and Senate leadership and management experience all out of scope for the discussion of running a good Presidential campaign), I thought the points we well made. There are a number of additional interesting discussions:

Transformational vs Operational Leadership

We have seen different sparks in operational brilliance in presidential campaign. For example, Steve Forbes, Howard Dean both made great advances via internet strategies, but they lacked (at least in the case of Forbes) the transformational "pairing". I think there is an interesting story here about Obama, new message, new fundraising approach ( learning and growth coming from what came before it)

Market Efficiency & Imperfect Information = Market Failure

There is a really interesting argument about these two concepts. It would be interesting to see an analysis of policy ideas that would address clear market failures. Can the government address market failures in the 21st century without such a heavy regulatory hand??

Thanks for the discussion

- Posted by Trent
March 5, 2008 10:08 AM

regarding McCain, for someone to be literally raised up from the ashes early on, to securing the nomination, without a great deal of money backing him and having to make radical changes mid-way through the campaign does have something to say about management, leadership, or both?

- Posted by Ken Woody`
March 6, 2008 3:34 PM

Just a different thought...

I think presidential skills need Leadership than management skills. I think Presidential role is more on inspiration, policy, direction, risk taking, movement. All these are expected much from a Leader than a manager.

rgds,
H

- Posted by H
March 14, 2008 12:23 AM

Trackbacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/918

No trackbacks have been made to this entry.

Return to Barbara Kellerman

Join The Discussion

* Required Fields




Verification (needed to reduce spam):

Return to Barbara Kellerman


Posting Guidelines

We hope the conversations that take place on HarvardBusiness.org will be energetic, constructive, free-wheeling, and provocative. To make sure we all stay on-topic, all posts will be reviewed by our editors and may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance.

We ask that you adhere to the following guidelines.

  1. No selling of products or services. Let's keep this an ad-free zone.
  2. No ad hominem attacks. These are conversations in which we debate ideas. Criticize ideas, not the people behind them.
  3. No multimedia. If you want us to know about outside sources, please point to them, Don't paste them in.
We look forward to including your voices on the site - and learning from you in the process.

The editors


Stay Connected

RSS Feeds
Email Newsletters
Twitter: @HarvardBiz
YouTube
Podcasts on iTunes
Harvard Business Mobile

About this Author

Barbara KellermanBarbara Kellerman is the James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. She was the Founding Executive Director of the Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership, from 2000 to 2003; and from 2003 to 2006 she served as the Center’s Research Director. She is author and editor of many books and articles on leadership. She is the author of Followership: How Followers Create Change and Change Leaders and Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. For the period 2007-2008, she is ranked by Leadership Excellence 6th on the list of the 100 “best minds on leadership.”