WHY THE TWO OBAMAS?
The conflict of two Purposes establishes the Brand.

Nobel Prize winner and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, echoing the impression of many, sees two Obamas. One who speaks most eloquently about issues and another who settles for policies so weak, they are unlikely to be effective. The premise of the argument is that things would be better if we just had the first Obama to deal with, and that this is possible with a bit of extra audacity.

I often envy card carrying economists for the simplicity of their premises. This is a case in point. Contrary to Paul Krugman, I believe that we just cannot have one Obama. The American system does not allow it; and if the system allowed it, the people would not have enjoyed it.

We elected Obama to play four roles: The Head of the Democratic Party; The occupant of the pulpit of the Oval Office; The Head of the Administration and the Head of Government. It would, therefore, be irrational to expect him to act the same irrespective of the role he performs at any particular moment. The Constitution would not allow it. Furthermore, it would be unrealistic to expect him to be equally good in all roles; nobody is. Even if he were, he would still be dependent on the performance of others. The Government, the Administration, the Party are team sports. This is how our system works.

The premises of economists fix man; place him in a static condition. No matter what happens he will be a producer or consumer of articles, a decision maker. However, in politics, as in drama, man is dynamic, a restless seeker of his purpose. When it comes to the reaction of the people, when watching an unfolding story, such as that of Obama, our attention first focuses on character.

In attempting to understand character, we enjoy focusing first on what he is trying to do. In my opinion Obama `s purpose is clear: to reinstate America as the city on the hill. His personal voyage reveals him as a man pursuing excellence for its own shake. He is fundamentally a sovereign type, as genuine in wanting to set the right standards as John McCain, the warrior par excellence , was in fighting America`s wars.

Paul Krugman, nevertheless, does have a point. The Administration has a secondary purpose: to maintain a sense of community with Congress and beyond. The two purposes are indeed in conflict, but it is this conflict that makes the story interesting and thus sustainable. Obamism, like most brands, is built on the conflict of two purposes. It is this conflict that creates the illusion of the two Obamas.

Only great companies and great leaders eventually settle on a single purpose that becomes their legacy. This does not happen by choice, but in action, in what dramatists call the recognition scene. We are too early into the story to be asking for it.

readers’ comments

Boiling the FrogBack to Article »

By PAUL KRUGMAN

It’s difficult to get people to do what it takes to head off a catastrophe foretold. And now, both the economic and the environmental frogs are sitting still while the water gets hotter.

Post a Comment »

·      

Nikos Mourkogiannis, Nikos@Nikos.com

London

July 13th, 2009

5:46 am

Getting all the action necessary to prevent a catastrophy foretold has always been the dream of all magicians talking about catastrophies. Paul Krugman`s frustrations keep him true to the role. In reality, however, collective action comes in stages. Thinking - what Mr Krugman and I do for a living- is only the first step. People have to be Inspired and Mobilised before they Execute a solution. The American people have not been inspired to want to be taxed for climate mitigation. The President therefore had to sign the energy bill that Congress sent him. As for the the jobless recovery, this is already the dominant political issue in the West. Unfortunately, the solutions that seem to inspire and mobilize many groups have one common denominator: protectionism. Suggesting solutions that are better would be an excellent use of time for all card carrying economists. I would be most interested to read any suggestions that Mr Krugman or others have for a stimulus package that would prevent 10% of unemployed Americans from becoming jobless.

OBAMA THE SOVEREIGN
The President`s recent European trip provides a case study on how he inspires.
He came, he inspired and he left.
Many in Europe are now left wondering what the new idea was. Some are looking for the new coalition that will extend change beyond America. Others would have liked to see results.
THE BUSINESS OF INSPIRATION
They are all missing the point. Mr. Obama is not in the business of disrupting the world by producing new ideas, like “peace corps ”, “flexible response”, “ atoms for peace “or “detente ”. Nor is he in the business of putting together and mobilizing new coalitions of the willing. He welcomed help, but he did use neither sticks nor carrots to get it. His métier is neither new thinking, nor the exercise of influence nor that of the use of power. He is in the business of inspiration. This goes beyond mere style. It defines its leadership. It speaks to the kind of leadership campaign that he is a master at.
For some time now I have found that by applying the Jung framework of four ideal characters, as presented by Robert Moore, I could create a useful topology of leaders. Some leaders are recorded by history as magicians, for they tried to change the world by the brilliance of their ideas. Henry Kissinger enjoyed the appellation of magician, although Richard Nixon was the originator of the key ideas of the era. Some others knew how to mobilize people by just sharing their feelings and influencing them like lovers. Bill Clinton was second to none at that. A third category of leaders are the warriors, always focused on exercising power and winning. To his credit, George W Bush never denied the inclination. Besides, Dick Cheney was there to keep the President true to himself.
However, there are leaders of another kind. There are leaders who are neither magicians nor lovers nor warriors. They belong to a category of their own: they are sovereigns. Like Mr. Obama they are in the business of inspiration.
WHAT IS INSPIRATION
But what is inspiration and why is it so important?
Inspiration is the breathing of new air; it is the element of leadership that stimulates both the heart and the mind. To the theologian it is the supernatural influence; to the philosopher the truth communicated. Inspiration is different than thinking and distinct from motivation. Thinking is about searching the truth; motivation is about appealing to the emotions to reach a satisfactory agreement. Inspiration is about redefining what is possible; it stimulates both the heart and the mind, but it appeals to the sole.
In the last twenty years, inspiration has been on the retreat in the West both in practice and in the leadership literature. For several reasons people have been enamored by the other three elements of leadership: Thinking, Motivation and Empowerment- often referred to as Execution.
Yet, most collective action is the result of inspiration. Most of what people do on a daily basis has been prescribed by leaders, who have defined for us what is possible and connected us not to the new but to the eternal. The history of the world’s religions provides a number of examples on how this was achieved by the likes of Moses , Buda, Jesus and Mohammad .
Modernity has its own examples of great “inspirators”- to use a neologism which rhymes with “opinionators” and contrasts with “deciders”. To appreciate their contributions, just ponder a simple question: How would Africa have evolved without Mandela, the US without Lincoln, India without Gandhi? When it comes to leadership, inspiration is more important than thinking, mobilization or empowerment, although it is not but one of four components of what I call the TIME framework of leadership.
Each of these components corresponds to a different campaign, which is a sequence of actions followed by a leader to bring about collective action. Each leader is better fit for each of these campaigns: magicians are advantaged in leading “Thinking” campaigns; lovers are naturals for “Mobilization” campaigns; warriors for “Empowerment”- including disempowerment- campaigns. Finally, sovereigns like Mr. Obama excel in “Inspirational “campaigns.
THE CHIEF INSPIRATOR IN EUROPE
Even those who would agree with my definition of what leadership is and my description of who Mr. Obama is as a leader, are for sure wondering how he really does the inspiration thing and, more importantly, how does one conduct an “Inspirational” (“ I”) campaign. I believe Mr. Obama`s recent trip to Europe provides a good case study of the dos and don’ts of an “I” campaign.
LISTENING AND ACKNOWLEDGING
Mr. Obama inspired by actively listening, acknowledging, relating, confronting, setting boundaries and defining an inescapable future- all in this sequence. He did not favor the new at the expense of the old; he did not favor friends at the expense of others; he did not bother with results as much as he did with impact.
A leader that I respect told me that the key to success in politics is to make everybody feel like the most important person in the world- if only for a few minutes. That leader was a lover. Obama did impress differently: by listening to the arguments. People who met with him were impressed by how much he knew of the issues on the agenda and how interested he was in clarifying their position. He left no doubt that he was listening actively by soliciting reactions to counterarguments that he would offer but also by taking personal notes.
Unlike Mr. Clinton he did not seek to relate mainly by warmth of personality and a sense of humor, but rather by his ability to understand the position of others. Several times, especially when talking either to audiences of younger people or in Turkey (a country where the majority of people are Muslims ), used his personal story as the reason they should trust him. In doing so, he demonstrated that he knows both that what sovereigns need most is trust and that the best shortcut to trust is the public admission of joint vulnerabilities. At no point did he apologize for American actions, but he did rely on the power of acknowledging mistakes –like starting the war in Iraq and starting the financial bubble- to create momentum for his campaign.
CONFRONTING
For listening, relating, winning trust are just the preliminaries of inspiration. The redefinition of what is possible ultimately necessitates confrontation. And, as every good lawyer knows, acknowledgement of the weaknesses in one `s own case establishes credibility in confronting the arguments of others.
While in Europe, Mr. Obama confronted a lot of arguments- some of them advanced by Europeans, some of them previously espoused by American policy makers. He repeatedly confronted the long standing American perception that the European Union (EU) is a mirage. He went out of his way to communicate with the young in the town hall meeting in Strasburg but also to demonstrate his respect for “Old Europe” when visiting Buckingham Palace. The message of his several press conferences was a plea for responsibility rather than for compliance with the wishes of America. This disappointed some in the US, but made easier for the Chinese to contribute $50 b to the IMF during the G-20 meeting and for other countries to pledge 5000 new troops for Afghanistan during the NATO meeting that followed.
He also confronted some entrenched European perceptions. The firing of the head of GM , which preceded Mr. Obama`s trip only by a few hours, shocked many in Europe, especially those in the left who believed in the dogma that what is good for GM is good for the US. The town hall meetings dispelled the perception that a dialogue with America is not possible. The pictures with the other G-20 and NATO leaders- where Mr. Obama did not just walk to the center front- made people think that America is even capable to be humble.
Mr. Obama was at his best when dealing with the Russians. He did not play the game he inherited; he confronted the rules of the game. The entry of Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO and the deployment of antimissile technology in Eastern Europe were put on the backburner. Mr. Obama, like sovereigns often do, went back into the future. He inspired by putting negotiations about reducing nuclear stockpiles back on the headlines. Nobody would have considered this possible a few months ago. He went even further. He claimed for the United States the moral burden, as the only country to have used nuclear weapons, to lead the effort for their elimination. To some this was just a lofty pronouncement. To many it signaled a preoccupation to justify future steps.
SETTING BOUNDARIES AND MAKING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In Turkey he went beyond confronting perceptions, myths and the existing rules of the game. He set boundaries: He promised not to speak of the Armenian genocide but urged Turkey to open the frontiers with Armenia . He would support Turkey`s entry into the EU but expected Turkey to grant minority rights to its Kurdish minority. These words could easily be interpreted as interference in domestic affairs.
They were not. The Turks understood that this President was not traveling with carrots and sticks in his bag anxious to get their agreement on how the Kurds and the Armenians should be treated, but rather with standards that he deems applicable across national frontiers and religious divides.
A couple of Mr. Obama`s positions annoyed many people in both Europe and the US. Most Europeans do not support Turkey`s entry into the EU. A number of conservative Americans objected to Mr. Obama`s insistence that the US is neither Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim. Mr. Obama would not badge. As a true sovereign, he is less interested in consensus than he is that his pronouncements are inspirational to those whose support he seeks.
THE TARGET OF THE CAMPAIGN
Obama loyalists in the US called his trip a triumph. Almost all Europeans observers found the new President articulate and charming.” His personal style has a touch of the emperor and a touch of the rock star-but with an appealing humility that is common to neither profession” wrote the Financial Times. No US President has been received in Europe the way Mr. Obama was. Even the left wing press extolled his intellectual thoroughness and emotional steadiness. Nobody doubted that Mr. Obama was genuine in his beliefs and indeed charismatic.
Staying true to a belief in an idea (in Mr. Obama`s case excellence) during a lifetime is what sets a leader apart; the mark of charisma. The fact that Mr. Obama came from low origins to occupy the most powerful office in the world enhances his charisma. Europeans who care more about history than most know that leaders, like Mr. Obama, who inspired and were charismatic never came from the mainstream and were initially considered odd, like Abraham Lincoln, or Mandela (a hereditary prince joining a revolutionary party) or Gandhi (a privileged lawyer who chose to join the dispossessed) or Ronald Reagan (a Roosevelt Democrat and a self made actor who defined conservatism in our times).
However, despite Mr. Obama`s qualifications and charisma, a lot of people on both sides of the pond remain very skeptical. They are still looking for the idea that Obama represents. They are pointing out to the lack of global agreement on how to fix the economy. They are wondering whether, even if Mr. Obama is the right man, he came at the wrong time to have any impact- given the decline in American economic power.
According to a report by the newspaper Liberation that did not generate any denials, French President Nicola Sarkozy has his own reservations: “Obama has a subtle mind, is very intelligent and charismatic, but does not have a position on many things. He is not always operating at a level of decision-making and efficiency”
I believe that the skeptics, including the President of France, are making fair points but are missing the point. Mr. Obama came to Europe to inspire- neither to deal nor to rally the allies behind a set of decisions taken in Washington. He accomplished that by the boldness of his ambitions that put him apart from his predecessor but also from the leaders he mingled with. He wants to shock the world economy back into action, abolish nuclear weapons, reconcile Christianity and Islam and ultimately to usher an era of sustainable growth and responsibility. Focusing on standards comes to him naturally; this is how he has excelled.
Nobody laughed with him in the corridors of power and nobody demonstrated against him in the streets. Mr. Obama seemed to be walking the talk and definitely talking the walk. The American brand was greatly restored in the course of a week. This was the target of the short campaign.

INSPIRATION AND TRANSFORMATION
Restoring the American brand in Europe will not be enough. After all, Europeans will not vote in the next American election. Mr. Obama has set high standards for himself: the transformation of America. Transformation cannot occur on Inspiration alone. It takes a series of campaigns. Some will require new “Thinking”, like the Geithner plan. Some will require “Mobilization”, to refinance mortgages and to put people back to work. Some will require “Empowering” the regulators and disempowering those who want to become too big to be allowed to fail. Each of these campaigns has its own requirements, begs for different teams.
It is not clear that Mr. Obama is himself capable to lead all these campaigns. He is, however, gifted in providing what most transformational efforts lack to their demise: a new Purpose. We have seen the limits of America as a superpower trying to change the world on its own. An era of responsibility and sustainable growth presupposes an America that strives for Excellence for its own shake and sets the standards while pursuing it.
.
The Author, Nikos Mourkogiannis, is a London based Consultant and the Author of the book: Purpose: The Starting Point of Great Companies. He is currently working on his second book: Campaigns: From Purpose to Business Transformation.
He is reachable at: NikosOnline.com