![]() But Geithner’s Q rating rebounded Gates is using his credibility to push for reform at the Department of Defense and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is helping the president establish his international agenda with her valuable political capital and expertise on the issues. It wasn’t all smooth sailing: Several senior appointees withdrew because of tax troubles, and other important appointments at Treasury came slowly-a result of the strict vetting process Obama had established. Gates as secretary of defense, a holdover from the Bush administration). Even before the inauguration, Obama surrounded himself with well qualified and respected officials (including Robert M. But new leaders must also lay the groundwork for changes in the first year.Ī strong team is critical to that foundation. Solid early wins (and just a few losses) constitute a good start. In this first dimension of executive transition Obama gets an A. Obama reacted quickly, however, expressing the right degree of outrage at the bonuses, working to claw back the payments, developing and marketing a more detailed financial rescue plan-and deftly switching media attention to the conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh and his detrimental effects on bipartisanship in Washington. The negative reaction to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s skeletal bank-rescue plan in January, plus the AIG bonus debacle, raised the frightening possibility that the new administration wasn’t focused or competent enough to deal with the nation’s most pressing concerns. Of course, he has also experienced a few minor losses, courtesy of the failing markets. The president has managed to contain, if not extinguish, the “forest fire” engulfing the entire U.S. ship captain who had been captured by Somali pirates, he stifled those of his critics who said he was too soft and naive when it came to international security. And when he approved the use of force to free a U.S. ![]() In April 2009 Obama took his first bows on the global stage, bolstering his credibility with a strong performance at the G-20 summit meeting, his outreach to Iran, and his efforts to win modest additional sanctions against North Korea for defying UN security resolutions and launching a long-range missile. ![]() Once in the Oval Office, he ordered the Guantánamo Bay detention center closed, removed restrictions on funding stem-cell research, established a time frame for ending the war in Iraq, and released documents outlining policy on the interrogation of suspected terrorists-all symbolic moves aimed at solidifying his Democratic base and restoring the United States’ reputation worldwide. Obama accomplished all that and more in his first 90 days. That means making the right symbolic gestures, identifying and securing early substantive wins, and avoiding early losses. The first goal for a new leader is to build credibility and create a general sense among employees (or, in this case, citizens) that momentum is building for positive change. So, how did President Obama fare in his first 90 days? Securing Early Wins Did the new leader begin to clearly express an inspiring vision for what he will accomplish during his tenure?Ī weakness in any one of these dimensions can signal trouble ahead, and serious problems in all three are a sure sign that the transition is going off the rails. Did the new leader lay the groundwork for accomplishing top priorities within his first year? Articulating a vision. Did the new leader build credibility by scoring early victories while avoiding or mitigating losses? Laying a foundation. As a result of my decades-long research in the area of executive transitions, I find it most useful to evaluate the effectiveness of new leaders along three critical dimensions: Securing early wins. But how he has handled the transition matters a great deal, especially given the national turnaround he’s facing. ![]() What Barack Obama achieved in his first 90 days won’t guarantee him wild success for the rest of his four-year term nor will it necessarily doom him to failure. This complex transition dynamic is no different-and no easier to manage-in government. Momentum for organizational change builds-or doesn’t. Feedback loops, both positive and negative, are established. Stakeholders parse every word, gesture, and decision, straining to discern intent and assess credibility. The senior leader’s early actions end up having a disproportionate impact on everything that follows. Leadership is a momentum game-which is why there’s such incredible pressure on business executives in new roles to get it “just right” in their first few months. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |