Harvard Business Publishing

Bill - Barack Obama became President through a process called democracy. Voting was involved. That's not normally how we CEOs are chosen. Should it be?

Adrian,

Well, boards of directors vote on who should be CEO. There is at least, in theory--and I emphasize the "theory" part--shareholder democracy in publicly traded companies. And some of the world's most powerful professional-service firms (like McKinsey and BCG) are partnerships where the partners do in fact vote for "CEO."

So it's not so crazy as it sounds. But my point was more about how CEOs and other executives can use the Obama victory to make sense of the world--to summon up the courage to play the game differently.

This would have been a very impressive article--had it been written BEFORE the election. Monday-morning quarterbacking is much less impressive.

Scott,

What's the problem? I am trying to do some analysis, not predicting. I am not a pollster or a political pundit. I simply looked at what happened and tried to draw out lessons for business. And, to be technically accurate, since the election was on Tuesday, I engaged in Wednesday-morning quarterbacking.

Great post

Aside from Obama's differences and sticking to a core message I saw in his win an impressive execution of strategy by using shared ideals. Leaders who who hold tight to personal ideals and lead by unilateral action often win, and then must share rewards. If they lose, there are no rewards at all to share and people are left feeling bitter and disillusioned.

Those leaders who build a following or team of people with shared ideals can also win, often with a stronger more vigorous effect. Upon wining, not only are the rewards shared but the team finds that the process itself was rewarding.

I've been thinking of this lately as I see many companies struggling to survive. These companies have fewer rewards to share and their employees begin to evaluate their experiences at that company. Those that have worked simply following others' directions are wrenched back and forth in a death roll of Collins' "chronic inconsistency" as the leader searches for the "right" answer to current dilemmas. They also begin to think about where they would rather work once the economy comes around.

Leaders that have built teams with shared values pull together and work to find a solution with all the power that a nationwide campaign can muster, and win or lose they find it a rewarding experience.

As so many management teams struggle to balance cutting costs, benefits and perhaps jobs, we all may do well to remember, by example of Obama's win, what a team with strong shared beliefs can accomplish.

Bill:

While President-elect Obama did stay on point, I believe McCain lost the election more than Obama should get credit for winning it. McCain was actually leading in the many of the polls prior to his tactical mistake in handling the bailout. Up until then, the country was clearly supporting McCain. The lesson here was not the Obama's message was better, or even that it was more consistent. Rather his timing for recognizing and seizing an opportunity was simply better.

The same situation happened all over the world.

In Asia, specifically from Malaysia General Election last March, the reformation and transformation wave has changed the way Malaysian and it's incumbent politician thinks.

The will to change and ability to come out from the comfort zone has made this wave the biggest phenomena of this year.

Our academia should learn this and try to find out what is the nucleus that has triggered this change?

Bill:
Obama did not dare to be different, in my view. He stayed on message: "change", but while he repeated that ad nauseum, precious few of his supporters could articulate how that might come about in real terms. In fact, the message was much more subtle: to be just substantive enough to stay ahead of the criticism he was being too vague.

Only a Kerry could have lost this race for the Democrats. Not even the thousands of miles from DC to Alaska were sufficient to distance the "Mavericks" from the mess created by the Republican in the White House. So Obama need do little more than act Presidential, something that clearly comes natural to this once in a generation born leader.

The message I heard was that Obama must avoid going beyond tantalizing. Being specific beyond what was necessary to dazzle the masses and then slide through the debates and editorial boards was unnecessary.

He was lucky in some ways that he faced off against McCain. Huckabee's stage presence and wit might have been a greater challenge, and Romney's movie star good looks might have tantalized on a par. But McCain's age, minor infirmities, and three point turns doomed him. The door was wide open the day Obama won the nomination, but that wasn't enough for McCain. He rolled out the welcome mat with hand maiden Palin.

So what lessons can be learned by CEO's from this? As a manager addressing your team, your Board, or your shareholders, say as little as possible so you avoid gagging on your foot? Not. Look Presidential? That might help if you can grow north of six feet, stay rail thin, and be pleased by the reflection in the morning mirror. But CEO's aren't that telegenic. Few are blessed with speech writers and a delivery that rivals The Great Communicator.

If I had to focus on one translatable characteristic that contributed to Obama's victory which ought to be studied by CEO's, it would be his steadfast, unflappable, sincere and unpatronizing demeanor. He demonstrated with his body language as well as his fabulous command of the language and powerful delivery that he is a leader in whom we can trust.

I would like to think that was NOT a difference he dared to "be"; but, in fact, it was.

Regards.

There's no question that Obama devised a brilliant strategy, but so can many CEO's. What Obama did different, and where the real lesson is for CEO's in my opinion, was his almost flawless execution. Studies and experience point to many good enough strategies coming undone due to poor execution, frequently because of not getting the message to the 'shop floor'. Obama made sure he got the message directly to those that he needed to mobilize to accomplish his overarching goal of getting elected.

Bill, how can we began to think this critical about a paradigm shift or new concept when we are stuck on believng our way or no way. We have not yet learn to accept defeat. For example,in the serentity cred: God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference. This is a recovery stage that must happen before the healing began. However, if one is not willing to accept defeat how do they began the healing process?

Thanks,

Bill,

Thanks for the good read. It reminded me of something I always tell folks about innovation, which is, "If it makes sense, then it likely isn't innovation." Innovation needs to feel strange, to look strange -- at least at first. That's really part of the definition; it is something new and different. But people often don't get that. They reject what feels or looks strange, and therefore they reject good ideas.

[Note: This is not to say that everything that looks or feels strange is innovation either. The converse doesn't work.]

The point about repetition is a strong one. For something to not seem "strange" any more, it has to be repeated. I imagine you have had this happen... you hear a song once and don't quite like it. Then you hear it repeated again, and again, and all the sudden you are tapping your toes and singing along.

Best regards,
Jana

Bill,

Apply your lessons to General Motors. They did have to respond to the Japanese car manufacturers better-quality products, and to a large degree, did well. Where did they lose their focus? What happened?

Bill,

Interesting post and comments.

I totally agree with your thoughts about being disciplined, Obama was masterful at this with his messaging and execution and I believe that was the game changer. But I'm not so sure that he was elected because he was "different." In fact, I think that this was one of the things that kept the race close for so long. There were a lot of independent voters sitting on the fence waiting for a mistake to be committed and when none were, they decided that they were comfortable enough with ticking the Obama box.

Like all good leaders, Obama assembled a strong team, one that was absolutely free from dissension during the primary and general election campaigns. They were confident about their strategy and, in execution, never deviated from it.

While you cited Jim Collins, it's interesting to use Good to Great as a framework to look at Obama's leadership. He got the right people on the bus (above), "change" was his Hedgehog Concept, he maintained a culture of discipline, he used technology to his advantage (messaging and fundraising) and he slowly and steadily built momentum (the Flywheel). Time will tell if he is truly a Level 5 leader.

I believe that this election was actually less about Obama and more about us as a nation. The circumstances were ripe for change and Obama took advantage of that. While I am optimistic and hopeful about Obama living up to his potential, I am equally excited about how the face of leadership can change as a result of this historic election.

Thanks for always having something interesting to say and inviting us in for conversation.

Bill,

Excellent article! I am a corporate brand consultant and advise clients to:
1. Stand for something
2. Stand out from the crowd
3. Consistency, Consistency, Consistency

Many, however, have difficulty with those recommendations because of
1. Concern of commitment to something for the long-term
2. Concern of being different
3. Lack of discipline

Thanks for demonstrating the advantages using politics instead of boardrooms. Maybe it will make a difference.

The Business Case for Underprivileged Leadership

Malcolm Gladwell speaks to this in this week's New Yorker magazine: Success was (and still is) seen as a matter of capitalizing on socioeconomic advantage, not compensating for disadvantage.

In order to do business at the highest levels, it really helps to have been a powerbroker's classmate at Yale or Harvard.

Yet, the underprivileged minority has none of those advantages or constraints of high society. The minority is free to keep social and financial considerations separate. He can call a bad debt a bad debt, or a bad customer a bad customer, without worrying about the social implications of his honesty. You can't tell the chairman of a FORTUNE 500 company that he's an idiot if you were his classmate at Yale or Harvard. That is why truthtelling is easier from a position of cultural distance.

The idea that outsiders can profit by virtue of their outsiderness runs contrary to our understanding of minorities. But there are clearly also times and places where minorities benefit by asserting and even exaggerating their otherness. The election of the first African-American president of the United States, is the latest example of otherness wanted and needed in a time of global crisis.

I voted for the candidate that 'told the truth' in attunement with my meaning-making, didn't you?

I teach a course in Entrepreneurship and Innovation in a MBA program at a local university. For the past two sessions I have used the Obama campaign as the perfect example of an innovative business process.

A start-up with a small group of people who developed a clear business plan based on a mission, focus and well managed process. There was an operational culture that was clear through out the process, which was discussed by David Brooks last week.

The HBR article, “Thinking inside the Box”, seems to apply. Development of a structure that allows you the freedom and creativity to be successful is the hallmark of the organization. Each person and volunteer seemed to work as engaged individuals, but integrated the goals, mission and culture. Quite remarkable.

Not even looking at the political issues, but the business process issues should be the subject of extensive research. How he manages in the future in a structure that is dictated to him remains to be seen.

Thank you Bill for sharing ideas and opening discussion. I truely believe that your post is designed to sort out some core points that could be useful for any (aspiring) CEO and even more.
@Mike Myat

".... While President-elect Obama did stay on point, I believe McCain lost the election more than Obama should get credit for winning it...."
FALSE

".... Obama's message was better, or even that it was more consistent. Rather his timing for recognizing and seizing an opportunity was simply better"
RIGHT but MORE THAN THAT

@Richard Reinis

"...In fact, the message was much more subtle: to be just substantive enough to stay ahead of the criticism he was being too vague"
PARTLY RIGHT, and this was deliberate by concealing his governing actions. A smart, honest and efficient move. Who can pretend to predict the future as US President?

@cpeasner
"...the real lesson is for CEO's in my opinion, was his almost flawless execution..."
RIGHT, but more pay a look at how he has won making these huge accomplishments seem effortless, has kept up the US citizens need to believe and has created a cultlike following.

@Peter A. Mello

"...I totally agree with your thoughts about being disciplined, Obama was masterful at this with his messaging and execution and I believe that was the game changer...
Like all good leaders, Obama assembled a strong team, one that was absolutely free from dissension during the primary and general election campaigns. They were confident about their strategy and, in execution, never deviated from it"
RIGHT

"..I believe that this election was actually less about Obama and more about us as a nation. The circumstances were ripe for change and Obama took advantage of that. While I am optimistic and hopeful about Obama living up to his potential, I am equally excited about how the face of leadership can change as a result of this historic election."

RIGHT, and more, just consider that he has overcome the Clinton machine inside his own camp, has demonstrated he mastered the art of timing, has shown along 21 enduring months that he has full control over himself, has sniffed out the spirit of the times and the trend that was likely to carry him where he is now and has been since the debut presidential if not royal.

Sen. Obama was elected the President of the United States, not the CEO. Although Pres. Bush has tried to fulfill the business coup d'état that his grandfather started with other CEO's in 1933 against FDR to establish a fascist government he has not totally succeeded. We are a constitutional republic. Granted Bush and the free market republican party have set up a non-constitutional corporate run market based government to diminish the power of the people of the republic. Has the bailout completed this government-corporate fascist coup? To bad the right and left press won't discuss this coup. We the peple did not vote to approve the new free market economic system in 1998. Your comments Calling our President a CEO are repulsive. Remember the free market republicans had to use lies and spin like 'less government, 'run govt like a business', the govt is evil, and the press is evil to con the American people. We don't have a Major General Smedley Butler to stop this 21st century business coup and treason as we did in the 1933 business plot against FDR.

Your comments are naive, and untrue. You, clearly, have fallen under the spell of the "corporatacracy" that runs this country, has taken it down, and is now looting our treasury in the name of "bail out."

Did Mr. Obama use discipline? You bet. He is, after all a HARVARD law school graduate, and the Editor of the Law Review. That does not happen without discipline.

Different? People seem to forget that he had a white mother in addition to a black father.

He used every political connection possible to build his networks.

As one of your writers noted, there was actual voting involved, countrywide. Not what passes for "voting" by ignorant, ill-informed shareholders, or the teams of board members who have voted the past ten years, at $80K per head, to keep in place what passes for "corporate governance."

You are not being honest. But then, the people who run this country are trying to perpetuate a myth as they loot the Treasury with the clear help of the Democrats.

Let us see if Mr. Obama is able to stop any of this. My bets? Mr. Obama is nothing if not a cautious man, who is deliberate, and has only recently been on the national stage. Change? We will see how badly his hands are tied by the corporatists and the Bushies who want to ensure that they are never stopped. They are tying Mr. Obama's hands now, with the help and the assent of the same Democrats who never used leverage to stand up to Bush and his minions.

Regards

Bill, thanks for starting a great conversation! I just published a Web 2.0 case study on the Obama campaign's use of social media and how it contributed to overall results. Moreover, I think the use of social media is changing the rules, not only of elections but of governing. By dialing into these things, CEOs can improve their competitiveness. For example:

The Obama campaign provided people the tools and messages to rapidly scale its size and energy. Mybarackobama was designed to digitize grassroots. It was designed to enable supporters to lower the transaction cost of contributing. It supported key business processes during the election.

It was a P2P (peer to peer) effort that also utilized best-in-class marketing techniques; however, an unprecedented portion of implementation was people and supporters, as the campaign spent a bit less than 50% on TV advertising and far more in the field. It used data mining to laser focus resources. It mashed up old and new.

It also went to the people by providing tools and engagement in key branded social media venues.

Therefore, the big lesson for CEOs is the power of digitizing word of mouth and providing resources that are aligned with what people want *and* that support your key business processes. By no means am I suggesting that that's all they have to do, but I believe Obama would not have won without the campaign's social media element.

Thanks again and all the best- Chris

p.s. here's the case study: http://tinyurl.com/9ntonk