Management and the Liberal Arts II

In any library or book store you can find dozens maybe even hundreds of books on management written by many experienced and some inexperienced managers. These books purport to teach you how to manage in simple terms. In essence these books tell the reader that if you just follow the processes and techniques you will be a successful leader and manager. Of course as we all know that things “as seen on TV” don’t always work as shown and the same is true with these books as well. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these books and the processes and techniques are usually sound but at best they simply bring you up to the level of your peers who have read the same books. But in general these management books really don’t address management at a theoretical level nor do they give any indication of the downside of a failure to understand the foundation and exercise of power because management is essentially an exercise in power. However, this insight can be gained from many sources within the liberal arts and perhaps one of the best sources is Shakespeare.

Shakespeare’s lessons in power are much more specific and useful because they cover the ups as well as the downs of power. In his three plays, Richard II, King Lear, and Antony & Cleopatra Shakespeare shows how power is not enough and a failure to understand and exercise power leads inevitably to humiliation and destruction. In all three of these plays the title character enters at the height of power but in the end dies humiliated and destroyed due to his lack of understanding the basic nature of power. Richard begins as a new king with inherited power. In modern terms this would be similar to a loyal subordinate or new hire being promoted to the top spot. Lear is an aging King who desires rest without the day-to-day responsibilities of running the kingdom. In modern terms Lear is the CEO who becomes Chairman of the Board while delegating the daily exercise of power to subordinates. Antony is a subordinate who has clawed his way to the top but thinks that the power delegated to him is his alone and because he is Antony. All three offer lessons in the exercise of power and the need to understand its source and how to employ it.

All three of these leaders see their authority as tied to them personally and that authority alone gives them the right to lead. Of course Richard has succeeded as King and being king is enough in his eyes to justify all of his actions. People should simply obey him without question. In modern terms this is the executive who has been given the top job and thinks that because of his position no one should question him. Of course Lear has been the successful monarch and feels that his power is his by right and tied to him personally. This attitude regarding personal power is very visible with Antony who sees the power delegated to him by Rome is his personally – power is Rome – Antony is power. But their failure to really grasp the source of their power leads all three inexorably to death and destruction. Of course in modern management the failure to grasp the source of power rarely leads to death but it certainly can lead to failure and humiliation.

The executive who follows the King Richard model is the executive who brings in his cronies while ignoring the incumbents. This is the executive who is out to change things and bend the organization to his will without regard for any past history or recommendations from the incumbents. In this scenario the incumbent executives will typically react by ignoring the inner circle cronies and their edicts. This will evolve into passive aggressiveness followed by active resistance unless the executive mends his ways which he rarely does. The irony here is that the executive usually fails to understand why he failed and why his subordinates opposed him when he was acting in their best interest and the best interest of the company. The lesson is that when you come into a top spot you may bring some trusted colleagues with you but you cannot ignore the incumbent leaders. They must be consulted and included in the planning and execution.

Lear is a rather sad case because he truly believed that his power and influence was his personally. King Lear divided his kingdom. He thought that he would still be in control and influential in the running of the kingdom. Of course he was ignored, ultimately humiliated and destroyed. There is an excellent modern example of this with Lee Iacocca former President of Ford Motor company. When Iacocca was fired from Ford he was stunned to find that many of his “friends” of 25 years would no longer return his phone calls. Like many other executives Lee thought that his power and influence were tied to him personally rather than to his position. But the reality is power is tied to the position not to the person. A bitter lesson that Lee learned and this seems to be a hard lesson for many executives to grasp. Once you leave a position the power and perks leave as well but on the positive side so do the sycophants, courtiers, and hangers-on that you thought were friends.

Antony’s view of power is more complex. He feels he achieved his power through his military conquests and it is his and his alone. He fails to understand that the power he wields is Rome’s power and not his individually. In modern terms we find the Antony style manager to be the one who has risen through the ranks and survived bruising political battles. But with power he feels it is his by right and he is free to act as he chooses. This type of manager commonly runs into trouble when his personal goals conflict with those of the organization. To some extent an organization can withstand the conflict but if the leader persists in viewing his power as his personally then inevitably he will be stripped of that power. This may come about through termination, resignation, or simply being moved aside without power.

There are many management lessons to be learned from the liberal arts and Shakespeare is simply one such source. These plays by Shakespeare show how power can become destructive to the person once they think that the power belongs to them and not to the position. This is a trap that all modern managers must be cognizant of because their power belongs not to them but to the position. Power always belongs to the group or organization and a failure to recognize that subordinates and peers as well as superiors must be taken into account.

Foreign Policies of President Obama

Recently I was asked to comment on President Obama’s foreign policy. By no means am I a foreign policy expert and what I know – if anything—is based entirely on what I have read and seen on TV. However, based upon that limited foundation, I think President Obama’s foreign policy rests on two key factors. I believe he is first and foremost an “Internationalist” in the sense that he believes in World Government. This translates into a tendency to subordinate America’s interests to those of the UN and the international community as a whole. The second factor is his belief that America is an overbearing arrogant super power that acts unilaterally and without regard for the interests of other nations.

President Obama came to the Presidency with no experience in business, government, or the military but with an activist vision of all of these things. He promised to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to close the Guantanamo Prison, to repair America’s relationship with the Islamic World, to reach out to Iran on their Nuclear ambitions, to reset relations with Russia toward ridding the world of nuclear weapons, to work with the Chinese on global issues, and to make peace in the middle east. In retrospect it is easy to see the naïveté of these goals because of their idealism and failure to account for any of the underlying details. President Obama’s lack of experience left him unprepared for the reality of his position and the constraints on his power. Each of his objectives individually are worthwhile but he did not realize that none of these stood alone but had strings and impacts in Congress and with other countries.

From the outset he found that there were constraints on his power, constraints from congress, from the people, and even from other countries. It seemed to him closing Guantanamo and moving the prisoners to prisons and to civilian trial would only require his order. He was unprepared for the cost, the public outcry, and the legal issues. Ultimately he was forced to abandon this goal and act pragmatically. In fact President Obama’s efforts to achieve the lofty goals he promised have consistently yielded to practical decisions and compromises.

Having been raised as a Muslim or simply exposed to Islam, he came to office perhaps with a greater understanding of Islam than any previous president. Armed with this knowledge he aimed to repair America’s reputation within the Islamic community. This objective formed the basis for much of his foreign policy. This was a policy that not only failed in its objective but seriously damaged his position at home. His actions and compromises have been viewed abroad as signs of weakness and intransigence and at home as examples of his inexperience, incompetence, and subordination of American interests to internationalism.

One of President Obama’s objectives was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but he quickly discovered that starting a war is much easier than ending one. But there was never a declaration of war so as President he could end them with a stroke of a pen, which he more or less did. This was done over the objections of the military and the result left Iraq dominated by religious conflict, an incipient civil war, a corrupt government heavily influenced by Iran, and with Al Qaeda resurgent. The results in Afghanistan are similar. By announcing a withdrawal date the Taliban and Al Qaeda took that as surrender and have become resurgent. In this instance he fulfilled his campaign promise but his foreign policy failed and the Islamic community saw this as an example of American unreliability and weakness.

As part of his policy of Islamic refurbishment President Obama distanced himself from Israel. To a rational person that might have made sense but the Islamic countries simply saw that as another sign of weakness and a demonstration of how unreliable America is as an ally. Rather than improving the situation in the Middle East President Obama’s policies have left the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda stronger throughout the area. More importantly the policy toward Israel has emboldened Iran and the Palestinians and has made the possibility of another war greatly increased.

The Foreign policy toward China has been one of talk more than action. The Chinese government has consistently attacked our government and industrial computers for the purpose of stealing secrets. The Chinese do not honor copyright laws and manipulate their currency. All of these things are known and reported in the press, yet there has been no action taken to correct or prevent these. This has had a huge impact on the American economy through the loss of jobs and revenues. The idea that problems can be solved through talk is the basis of diplomacy but ultimately diplomacy must be backed up by action and these actions have been missing throughout this administration.

The foreign policies of President Obama have been well intended with the idea that by retreating from an aggressive leadership position America’s image would be enhanced, but clearly this has not been the result.