The staff I supervised at the time objected to the fact that I included on my resume the accomplishments of the program I managed. Their response was that they had been the ones that did the work and I was taking credit for their efforts.
In a way, they had a point. But they also didn't understand leadership. As coach of the Green Bay Packers, Vince Lombardi never scored a touchdown and never kicked a field goal. And yet he is credited with the success of that football team throughout most of the 1960's.
In the end, I decided to take the staff objections as a compliment. That's because I value the kind of leadership that facilitates the feeling ownership by employees for their accomplishments. It's the kind that Marshall Ganz described this way:
Another important distinction is that between leadership and domination. Effective leaders facilitate the interdependence or collaboration that can create more "power to" -- based on the interests of all parties. Domination is the exercise of "power over" --a relationship that meets interests of the "power wielder" at the expense of everyone else.Over the course of Obama's presidency, we've often heard that he doesn't do enough to tout his own record and when someone else does, activists will jump in and take credit for pushing him to do something. Most recently that happened with his executive orders on immigration. Activists who had interrupted his speeches and called him the "Deporter-in-Cheif" took credit. The same thing happened when DADT was finally overturned a few years ago.
While Obama's supporters will often complain about that, I'm not sure the President would mind. As a former community organizer, he is well-versed in the "dance" between activists and politicians. And I believe that his goal as President has always been to lead in the same way he did back in those early days in Chicago. Here's how James Kloppenberg described him in Reading Obama.
How did Obama, lacking any experience as an organizer, learn the ropes so fast? In Galuzzo's words, "nobody teaches a jazz musician jazz. This man is gifted."There is both a quantitative and qualitative difference between organizing fifty people on the South Side of Chicago and leading the entire country. That is why Michelle Obama described her husband's foray into politics like this:
Kruglik explains Obama's genius by describing two approaches community organizers often use. Trying to mobilize a group of fifty people, a novice will elicit responses from a handful, then immediately transform their stray comments into his or her own statement of priorities and strategies. The group responds, not surprisingly, by rejecting the organizer's recommendations. By contrast, a master takes the time to listen to many comments, rephrases questions, and waits until the individuals in the group begin to see for themselves what they have in common. A skilled organizer then patiently allows the animating principles and the plan of action to emerge from the group itself. That strategy obviously takes more time. It also takes more intelligence, both analytical and emotional. Groups can tell when they are being manipulated, and they know when they are being heard. According to Kruglik, Obama showed an exceptional willingness to listen to what people were saying. He did not rush from their concerns to his. He did not shift the focus from one issue to another until they were ready. He did not close off discussions about strategy, which were left open for reconsideration pending results. Obama managed to coax from groups a sense of what they shared, an awareness that proved sturdy because it was their doing, not his. From those shared concerns he was able to inspire a commitment to action. In the time it takes most trainees to learn the basics, Obama showed a virtuosos's ability to improvise. As Galuzzo put it, he was gifted.
Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.And so I suspect that when citizens take credit for the changes they've worked to make happen, the community activist in him counts that as a success.
"The same thing happened when DADT was finally overturned a few years ago."ReplyDelete
This is one of the things that makes me angriest about the Obama years. Not the activists patting themselves on the back -- the dog thinks that its barking is what makes the mailman go away every day, fine you dumb animal, think whatever you want -- but that Lt Dan Choi was so mad that the repeal of DADT was taking too long, he actively encouraged people to withhold their support for the Democrats in the 2010 election.
Well, we all know how the 2010 election went. And we also know that, in December 2010, Congress finally repealed DADT, driving a stake into its heart so firmly that it can't ever come back.
Every vile thing the Republicans had a hand in after taking power in 2011, at the local and state and federal levels, the Dan Chois of the world have a hand in. His particular issue got straightened out thanks to the team he abandoned, but he threw everyone else under the bus.
Thanks Nancy. I'm often irritated by the a lack of credit Obama gets for the work he does. But, as you suggest, a true leader isn't in it to get credit. He is in it to find ways to get people to do the hard work necessary to address the issues. This takes a lot of humility and patience. And those are not characteristics we commonly associate with politicians.ReplyDelete
... and, it also occurs to me that the ACA was passed by this methodology, letting Congress discover what it was willing to pass, and then letting them do it. HillaryCare failed because the White House tried to tell Congress what to pass, and I always figured that Obama was making an effort to take the exactly opposite path. But it sounds like, perhaps, Obama was simply doing what comes natural to him. Had he not done so, the ACA probably couldn't have passed, judging by the paper-thin margins by which it finally squeaked through.ReplyDelete