Managing Campaigns

To come back to the application of management to politics . . . yesterday the New York Times ran a headline: Sniping by Aides Hurt Clinton’s Image as Manager. The article is interesting, but I think it overstates the management analogy; for example, at one point the authors say she has been a "detached manager" and that she is now trying to get more into the day-to-day. The article casts a negative light on Clinton's management skills and while I am not a Clinton fan myself I think this charge is a bit unfair because the problems she is dealing with are quite common for about any candidate running a large campaign.

Large campaigns are never managed by the candidate -- that is why they have campaign managers. I suspect Huckabee may have done more managing but that is because his campaign was much smaller. From the article, “She hasn’t managed anything as complex as this before; that’s the problem with senators,” said James A. Thurber, a professor of government at American University who is an expert on presidential management. “She wasn’t as decisive as she should have been." From here the authors describe her management style as "insular," meaning only a few people had access to her. Nevermind the chaos that might occur if she let lots of people have access to her or if she spent much time on the day-to-day campaign stuff.

Her problems in managing the campaign are actually quite common and predictable (McCain last summer had lots of problems, as well). First, management is not a natural skill. If so many have trouble doing it even with MBAs and experience in business where bottom line results bring reality real fast, why would politicians be any better at it? I doubt her problems were one of access but simply not having any reliable systems in place to know what was going on in terms of low morale and sniping in the lower staff (something, again, lots of business executives don't do well either). Further, candidates are different from CEOs in that the candidate is the product and thus must spend most of her time doing PR and boning up on issues -- leaving not much time for management.

Actually, the real problem with her "decisiveness" is the same one many politicans suffer from: inability to replace loyal aides. This is a problem George W. Bush has had as well -- valuing loyalty more than competence or results. How do you reassign or fire someone who has loyally stood by you and someone you trust is for you? Again, this happens in business as well -- loyalists who hang on even as they are unfit to carry on the tasks needed, but is especially evident in politics. In another context think of the Kansas City Royals -- a couple of years ago they the worst franchise in the league and many fans were blaming the owner. Yet, it is the job of the general manager to improve the team and he was failing miserably, unable to stick to a strategy and unable to manage the organization. The owner was at fault because he would not replace the general manager -- it was not about the owner's management style nor did he need to get into the day-to-day. Candidates often hire managers they trust based on loyalty, not based on getting results.

So, while I think such backroom news on camapaigns can sometimes illustrate the character of the candidate (e.g., John Kerry's behavior in 2004 did not always show him in a good light in terms of character), it is a stretch to translate campaign management to decision making in the Oval Office. Quite frankly, most candidates don't have a clue. And if that is the criteria, then we better start soliciting people like Andy Grove, James Kilts, Robert Rubin . . . or Mitt Romney.