Darrel 09 Sep 05

AKA ‘micromanagement’?

Frank 09 Sep 05

Amen to that…

Darrel: I’m not sure if you’re implying that micro management is a bad thing (in most cases it is), but in this case, it’s what is needed.

What the people of Louisiana (and the affected surrounding states) need is to see the leader take some action… plane rides above the sites, and brisk walks in the disaster zones mean sh*t. Step up to the plate!

Brady 09 Sep 05

Got a point, Darrel. I’d rather the CEO focus on effective strategic decisions. It is up to the management staff below him to take care the details. Of course, if he notices ineffectual management below him, he should pursuade change or make alternative staffing decisions.

That said, it is always important to see the leader roll up his sleeves when the going gets rough. Still, that is typically more symbolic than anything else.

fred 09 Sep 05

overrated.

Chris S 09 Sep 05

Again, there’s no right answer to a wrong question.

The question should be, “What if Giuliani were mayor of New Orleans right now?”

ted 09 Sep 05

Look at me, I’m a big hero and born leader because I picked up some spilled coffee while wearing a suit.

Bob 09 Sep 05

It’s a quality versus quantity issue. Micromanagement by an detailed yet effective leader gets results, whether or not the underlings are naturally ‘taking care of the details.’ Strategy and vision mean little if that’s all the leader contributes. Expertise and motivation come from a leader that has both those attributes and can demonstrate them.

Darrel 09 Sep 05

Darrel: I�m not sure if you�re implying that micro management is a bad thing (in most cases it is), but in this case, it�s what is needed.

Yea, I suppose there’s a fine line between caring about the details and dwelling on irrelevant details. Or at least, in management, they often have trouble finding that fine line.

Sean 09 Sep 05

Chris S -

You took the words out of my mouth. Where’s the state’s leadership? The other states (MS, AL) were hit just as hard (if not harder) than LA, and they are doing ok. What’s the difference? Strong local/state leadership.

Morgan Goeller 09 Sep 05

I think that what people forget is that no management is as bad as micro management in the wrong situation. The key is knowing when and where to apply your focus.

I am currently working on a project that was in many ways rudderless: an ill-defined mission, worry about layoffs, confused staff, and a general sense of malaise. I started holding very short (scheduled for 15 minutes) daily meetings for the entire staff so that everyone would know who was working on what and why (keep in mind that I am not the manager for this project, just a worker bee). The first few meetings were long and painful, but within a few weeks we had everything clicking along. The project is on-track and even privately the staff says that things are “coming together”.

We still hold the meetings, but rarely go longer than 15 minutes. People take care of things and I don’t have to bug them about what they need to do, because they have known about it well in advance and have been giving status on it on a daily basis for umpteen days.

Focus when you need to, don’t when you don’t.

Daniel Lakier 09 Sep 05

Leadership is not management. Management might well involve command of details, but leadership is quite a different beast. It involves things like charisma, strength of personality, etc… Leadership is a bit innate, and quite hard to learn.

Management, on the other hand, is quite learnable, and certainly does involve command of details as well as knowing when to delegate.

Leadership is not in the details, though management, especially in La, might well rely on the details.

Leaders, like, perhaps, Giuliani, are successful because of their ability to inspire others to perform at their best. They might also be good managers, but the 2 traits are different.

pwb 09 Sep 05

Disagree with Calcanis. There’s no way to effective manage something even of modest scale without delegating authority and not worrying about all the details.

Christopher Fahey 09 Sep 05

Whether or not it’s about “DETAILS” is beside the point. I don’t expect Bush to know how many gallons an hour can be pumped out of a flooded neighborhood or which National Guard units are closest to the scene. I do, however, expect him to be well-informed (exceptionally so) about the major events that are key to making decisions about what course of action to take. His job on Sunday was to make it damn clear to every single person under his command that this emergency is America’s #1 top priority. Why didn’t he do it? Either he didn’t know (even though everyone else in America knew), didn’t care (his sickening smirks and giggles over this past week are inexplicable), or just wasn’t competent enough for the task.

Leadership is about setting the tone for every person who you are responsible for. It’s about setting an example. The tone of our country’s top leadership during this disaster should have been ALL HANDS ON DECK. Drop-everything, get to work, do your best. Be serious, be proactive, be strong, be firm. Everyone should have known from at least Monday, if not Sunday, that this was going to be a time of great trials, and that everyone working for the government was going to be expected to work their hardest and to give the best they got. Lives are at stake.

With Bush goofing around and relaxing instead of loudly commanding his forces to act and alerting his nation to the gravity of the situation we face, with Rice out shopping and watching Spamalot on Broadway instead of answering phone calls from world leaders offering to help, with FEMA director Brown and Homeland Security Cheif Chernoff repeatedly displaying less knowledge about the disaster than an average guy reading the internet, and with Vice President Cheney totally fucking invisible, it’s no wonder that the people at every level of the ladder beneath them didn’t give 100% of their best effort. Nobody was telling them to get to work. Nobody was leading them.

This disaster has proven that Bush’s “hands-off”, “broad-strokes” style is a joke, slight of hand. I think back to his supposed leadership on September 11th (which, again, paled by leaps and bounds compared to Giuliani) and honestly, I can’t think of anything he did on the day of September 11th that showed true leadership and courage (from that day: My Pet Goat, erratic flight patterns, his panicky boots-shaking speeches). In the days afterwards, too, there was nothing he did that wasn’t scripted, and nothing that wasn’t pretty much the conventional wisdom obvious thing to do. Sure, he had some stirring words, but our recovery from September 11th had as much to do with the way Giuliani took control of the situation in NYC and the way that the existing military establishment sprung into action as they are trained to do.

As a workaholic, I used to admire Bill Clinton’s 20-hour work days but also suspected that Clinton, like me, might have been overworking in part to compensate for a loose, slightly disorganized management style. In fact, I used to have a slight bit of admiration for George W. Bush’s ability to run the government without stressing too much, his ability to delegate (a critical management skill). But now I realize that he doesn’t “run” jack. He relies on the “machine” to make things happen and to respond to problems, not realizing that the people he put into the machine (unqualified political cronies) and how he leads those people is the real key to making the machine run. I now know that it’s not delegation at all. He does nothing, least of all “lead”.

Anonymous Coward 09 Sep 05

Management is about maintaining the status quo. Leadership is about finding the new direction.

Tim Laughlin 09 Sep 05

Christopher Fahey: Obviously you watch CNN and do not see the DETAILS of what Bush did in regards to the WARNINGS of the hurricane. By declaring the area a disaster area BEFORE the storm hit, he instructed “the people below him” to get into action which they didn’t. I cannot say I agree all his massive spending bills or the like but I can say that in this matter he did his job as president and instructed his management to do their jobs (which were not done).

IMHO: Details is an interesting word.. look at it in this light.. we have so many details to look at as a society.. for example there were many people and many details responsible for the disaster in New Orleans.. our opinions of what happened with the government in this case are loaded with assumptions of the details involved. With that said.. we have created a society that needs details in order to find truth (as in who made the mistake). Unfortunatly we do not get those details through the media.. we are forced to make assumptions and place blame where it might actually be inappropriate.

In the case of this disaster what if the President did everything he should have by the book. If enough people “assume” he didn’t do all he could then it dosn’t matter what the truth is.. enough people are on board and the truth is lost in the assumed anger.

What are my “final thoughts” on all this.. well.. what is the answer.. how do we as a society learn that we probably don’t know enough details to make a valid opinion on a topic if we rely only on the media? How do we REFRAIN from making mass judgements based on personal feelings and biased opinions and give people the simple “Benifit of the doubt”? What happened to assuming people DID everything they could instead of assuming everyone screwed up? Do we demand the media show us details? Do we demand that the final blame be made public based on a judgment of facts?

I don’t see any end to this.. I think we will eventually eliminate the best of people because their own set morals are devalued by people making assumtions. I know for a fact that President Bush has some of the best moral values of anyone. Wishing Americans the best every day and honestly trying to give them everything they can to be the best. People don’t usually stray from their life long morals and I believe he did the best he can do as one human being.

Fanboy 09 Sep 05

I like Joel’s version:
“Anyway, on the first day working for the Sergeant Major, I didn�t know what to expect. I was sure it was going to be terrifying, but it had to be better than washing dishes and clearing tables all day long (and it�s not like the guy in charge of the mess hall was such a sweetheart, either!)

On the first day he took me to the officer�s bathroom and told me I would be responsible for keeping it clean. �Here�s how you clean a toilet,� he said.

And he got down on his knees in front of the porcelain bowl, in his pressed starched spotless dress uniform, and scrubbed the toilet with his bare hands.

To a 19 year old who has to clean toilets, something which is almost by definition the worst possible job in the world, the sight of this high ranking, 38 year old, immaculate, manicured, pampered discipline officer cleaning a toilet completely reset my attitude. If he can clean a toilet, I can clean a toilet. There�s nothing wrong with cleaning toilets. My loyalty and inspiration from that moment on were unflagging. That�s leadership.”

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BestSoftwareWriting.html

Benjy 09 Sep 05

Leaders need to focus on the bigger picture, not the tiny details. Acts like cleaning up the coffee may be inspirational in that they imply we’re all part of the same team, I’m not bigger and better than you, etc. But the leader can’t make a habit of always tending to every little thing. That was probably the biggest professional criticism of Bill Clinton that he liked to be so intimately involved in issues that it took time away from the many other issues.

I regards to Katrina, Bush shouldn’t be down there leading any more than he should be over in Iraq as Commander in Chief. But he should make it his responsibility to put the best people in the right positions rather than using gov’t jobs as payback for political donations, etc. Leadership means being mature enough to look out for everybody depending on you, not just your friends and their friends.

Scott M. 09 Sep 05

Having worked in Management and Leadership Development for many years I will echo what many have said: leadership is definitely not about the details.

TimL 10 Sep 05

Benjy: couldnt agree more

Christopher Fahey 10 Sep 05

Obviously you watch CNN and do not see the DETAILS of what Bush did in regards to the WARNINGS of the hurricane. By declaring the area a disaster area BEFORE the storm hit, he instructed �the people below him� to get into action which they didn�t.

I NEVER watch CNN except when I am forced to at airports. I read news from dozens of sources and I’m aware of the declaration and conversations you are alluding to (a declaration, by the way, which is standard procedure for most hurricanes and that even a dog as President would have done). Speaking with only a couple of people by phone and instructing them to “get into action” — while continuing to, for days after the disaster struck, visibly relax on an already too-long vacation, making public appearances about far-less-important issues like social security reform, grinning and kidding around with political supporters, and generally displaying a shocking ignorance of the actual situation on the ground — doesn’t count as leadership. The line between “professional delegation” and “passing the buck” isn’t quite that thin.

What happened to assuming people DID everything they could instead of assuming everyone screwed up?

It’s awful hard to assume people did their best when so many hundreds of thousands people are suffering while so many people supposedly in charge were obviously absent, indifferent, unqualified, and often ignorant of the facts throughout the process. The evidence of massive failures in the system, from top to bottom and everywhere in between, is the 10-ton elephant in the room that so many Bush admirers are claiming they cannot see. “Everything they could” would include, one would assume, not attending fundraisers, not attending political events, not shopping for shoes, and actually showing up for extremely long and hard days of work.

These guys work for us. If your employees weren’t doing their job adequately during a crisis, would you give them the benefit of the doubt and let them off the hook, or do you hold them accountable? If you had a company crisis, and a top manager at your firm called his or her underlings and told them to work hard — without showing up for full days of work him/herself and without ever really knowing the details about what the crisis was — would you assume that they tried their hardest? Would you forgive them since you know they’re nice people, even if the situation clearly could have been done better? Or do you critique their failures, investigate the mistakes, and try to figure out how to improve?

I know for a fact that President Bush has some of the best moral values of anyone…. Wishing Americans the best every day and honestly trying to give them everything they can to be the best.

Those are not sufficient qualifications to be President, or any kind of leader. Competence is important, too, as are the backbone to take responsibility for failure and the guts to take leadership over those with weaker leadership skills. Knowing who to put in charge of important jobs and knowing how to push them - hard - to do their jobs excellently is just as important as a good moral compass and a kind heart, if not more so.

Calcanis wasn’t talking so much about the importance of a good leader actually attending to the lowest level details, but more that a good leader should display a deep understanding of and concern for as many things as they possibly can, and to show a willingness to work their ass off to solve whatever problems they face. All of this in order to set an example. A leader should work as hard as everyone on their team, if not harder, and sometimes attending to minor details shows just how hard that leader is willing to work and just how much concern and scrutiny they have for the situation.

If everyone working on the rescue and recovery missions in the Gulf worked as hard as Bush did during this crisis, well, I shudder to think of it.

a New Yorker 10 Sep 05

One thing to consider about Giuliani is that he is the person that decided to put the New York City emergency comand center on the 23rd floor World Trade Center building 7.

World Trade Center building 7 was the steel framed building that collapsed into rubble at the speed of of a controlled demolition at 5:20 PM on 9/11.

There are many troubling details about his “leadership” on that day that are documented in the excellent book “The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin.

Also see http://www.wtc7.net/

Dan Hartung 10 Sep 05

People’s home are smashed into rubble, and somebody in this thread is worried we’re “devaluing” the “morals” of George Bush.

I can’t think of any clearer example of priorities being completely fucking screwed up.

Erin 12 Sep 05

Acts like cleaning up the coffee may be inspirational in that they imply we�re all part of the same team, I�m not bigger and better than you, etc.

Acts like cleaning up the coffee or cleaning the toilet say a lot more than this. They say that this is important. That the failure to do it won’t be tolerated.

And I think that’s the message those of us who were appalled by the administration’s failure to get water, food, or any sort of relief to people trapped in downtown New Orleans for 5 days or more wanted and expedted our president to convey: That allowing those people to suffer was not acceptable and would not be tolerated, and there would be no rest, no interviews with Ted Koppel or Anderson Cooper or whoever, no nothing until it was taken care of.

I didn’t see that message come from President Bush, and I don’t think the people who worked for him did, either. I sure didn’t see the results I would have expected if he had.

Chris S 12 Sep 05

Nagin simply wasn’t up to the job, and it was primarily his job.

Here’s a guy who declare’s a “mandatory evacuation” but doesn’t provide the means (buses) to evacuate. My guess is because he didn’t have a plan, didn’t have anywhere to evacuate them to.

So the next logical step is to use your infrastructure to preposition as many supplies, emergency medical staff, and security personal to the areas where you know the most people are going to be…the superdome and the convention center.

At least if he had done that, he would have had a better chance to maintain order and take care of people until help arrived. He didn’t do it cause he wasn’t prepared.

When asked by Stone Phillips what he would have done differently, Nagin simply said, “Scream louder.” Heh.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but whether you’re a manager (someone who keeps his cool, makes hands-on decisions) or simply a leader (someone who inspires, sets goals, and chooses good managers to do what he is unable to), I think I’d want someone in charge who can do better than “scream louder.”

In my opinion, his entire problem is that he’s got a big mouth with not a lot of reason controlling it. Good at blaming others, though. My dog could lead and/or manage better than that.

ghibertii 12 Sep 05

Re: Tim Laughlin (quote)
I know for a fact that President Bush has some of the best moral values of anyone�. Wishing Americans the best every day and honestly trying to give them everything they can to be the best.

Are you kidding me? Giving them the best? I won’t even go into his past years as President because there is too much to list to contradict this statement. I will however take a page out of the recent Katrina catastrophe that shows just how much Bush cares:

Bush lifts wage rules for Katrina
President signs executive order allowing contractors to pay below prevailing wage in affected areas.

http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bush%2Ballows%2BKatrina%2Bcontractors%2Bto%2Bpay%2Bbelow%2Bprevailing%2Bwage%2B-%2BSep.%2B8%2C%2B2005&expire=&urlID=15472857&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2005%2F09%2F08%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Fkatrina_wages.reut%2F&partnerID=2200

He really does care about the common struggling citizen….wake up and smell the coffee!!!! Buck Fush.

ghibertii 12 Sep 05

Re: Tim Laughlin (quote)
I know for a fact that President Bush has some of the best moral values of anyone�. Wishing Americans the best every day and honestly trying to give them everything they can to be the best.

Are you kidding me? Giving them the best? I won’t even go into his past years as President because there is too much to list to contradict this statement. I will however take a page out of the recent Katrina catastrophe that shows just how much Bush cares:

Bush lifts wage rules for Katrina
President signs executive order allowing contractors to pay below prevailing wage in affected areas.

http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bush%2Ballows%2BKatrina%2Bcontractors%2Bto%2Bpay%2Bbelow%2Bprevailing%2Bwage%2B-%2BSep.%2B8%2C%2B2005&expire=&urlID=15472857&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2005%2F09%2F08%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Fkatrina_wages.reut%2F&partnerID=2200

He really does care about the common struggling citizen….wake up and smell the coffee!!!! Buck Fush.