Dueling Speeches

Yesterday was an almost historic day in that two heavyweights in terms of stature "debated" the issue of counter-terroism policy -- Obama vs. Cheney. I won't get into who won, which is mostly dependent on one's ideological persuasion, but I found interesting one part of the argument taken up by both men and it reveals the inherent weakness of political solutions.

Having watched parts of Obama's speech and read the transcript of Cheney's, I think Gerald Seib of the WSJ identified the most interesting contrast of the two approaches ("Two Approaches on Gitmo, No Middle Ground"). As Seib notes, Obama made a clear attempt to strike a middle ground and Cheney was very clear that on this issue such a posture is foolish. Specifically, Cheney said, "The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism," he said. "They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum....But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground. And half-measures keep you half-exposed."

It is quite natural for the sitting president to try and take a middle ground -- he is trying to appeal to the greatest number of voters and he must work in a political process. Yet, Cheney's criticism gets at the heart of the real weakness of compromise. Compromise always leads to sub-optimal solutions. That is why when new legislation is passed some of those that sign onto the bill admit it is not perfect. In business, executives don't have to sub-optimize; that is, they can pursue policies that create "win" situations rather than "win/win." I can't imagine Steve Jobs at Apple, setting competitive policy with any other intention than "winning" against its competitors.

The Bush administration got excoriated for pushing the envelope on counter-terrorism policy in part because they seemed to obfuscate the purposes and the details. It is clear the reason they did this--often to their own disadvantage--is that they were trying to play a "win" strategy while presenting it in a political context, which demands "win/win" or compromise.

It's a worthwhile question: Should we (the U.S.) compromise or stake out a middle ground on the issue safety from terrorism? Should politicians try to act like they are operating a business? Can they? Finally, should we in wars provide Executives the power to execute strategies that bypass inherent weakness of compromise?

Finding Business Wisdom

CEOs of large corporations get a lot of play in the business press. People like Jack Welch, former head of General Electric, have become iconic; others like Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers infamous. Most recently, the CEOs of the automobile manufacturers have been in the news trying to save their companies. Based on this interview with an unknown car dealer named Jack Fitzgerald, Congress (since we now own GM) would be well advised to listen to people with better knowledge of the business.

Fitzgerald owns 5 Chrysler dealerships and notes the commandment that "thou shalt never dis the manufacturer" but plows right into doing just that. You will learn more about the industry in his 5 minutes than most full-length articles. Here are some of his gems:

• Dealerships are not overhead to the car companies -- the dealerships are independently owned (usually based on personal borrowings of the dealer owner). Even without selling any cars, the manufacturer makes money on the dealership just through fees.
• There are in the neighborhood of 100 million GM and Chrysler cars on the road. While new car sales are down and killing the company, there are still a lot of used cars sold. Dealerships are still the ones to service them. There are more cars on the road today (150 million), not less.
• When Fitzgerald bought his first Chrysler dealership, 23% of the recommended cars by Consumer Reports were Chrysler. Today it is 6%. The number for GM: 44% and 8%, respectively. Fitzgerald rolls these numbers out without notes or thought -- he simply knows them.
• His prescription for the business: We have 100 million cars out there and we need to take care of them and have something of quality to offer them for a new car.

I will bet that President Obama has no one on his staff as smart about the automobile business as Jack Fitzgerald. The more credentialed suspects likely to congregate in government circles might want to listen to Mr. Fitzgerald.

Confidence in the Product

I have been away for a few weeks recovering from surgery that has affected my ability to sit down -- and type a blog.

One way to advertise your product is to use it. I have always been troubled by politicians that promote and encourage public schools only to send their children to private ones. Such action is an admission that the product they are peddling is not all that good.

As the school year is down to the last few days, I must share my use of the product I am part of -- a Rockhurst eduction. My daughter has just completed her freshman year (literally just finished an hour ago) and I have re-learned some things I should have already known.

First, faculty in a variety of departments -- science, math, psychology, English, communication, history, and theology -- have been excellent. This year I have become a silent admirer of the work of Dr. Kovich, Dr. Felzien, Dr. Shorter, Dr. Bicek, Dr. Madison, Dr. Samonte, Dr. Miller et al. They know their subjects, but are focused on students first.

Second, there are organizations and support systems for students to find how they fit. Dr. Martin's work with the Honors Program is one example. Even though my daughter commuted this year -- which can be disconnecting -- she was able to plug into important campus supports as they were needed.

I am gratified that she enjoys going to school where her father works -- probably her feeling is in part because she knows she won't take any of my courses.