Leadership and Changing Your Mind
In the early morning on September 8, I woke up and couldn't get back to sleep. I read a little bit of news and among the stories were a number on the presidential elections in Afghanistan and the early indications of widespread voting fraud. The other main story around Afghanistan that evening was the appointment of General McChrystal as the new U.S. Commander. He was named to come up with and implement a new plan. I'll blame it on the semi-conscious state of being up in the middle of the night, but after my reading, I logged onto Twitter and posted the following haiku:
New team and new plan.As reported in the New York Times this week, President Obama is now considering a change in the plan for Afghanistan that he committed to six months ago. According to the Times' report, a worsening situation on the ground, the fiasco of the Afghan elections and a dire assessment of the future from General McChrystal have prompted a series of debates among Obama, the vice president, the secretaries of State and Defense, the national security advisor and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on what to do next. The options being discussed range from a significant increase in troops to a reduction in forces. Along with the debate on options comes a debate on whether the objective of the mission is nation building, controlling Al Qaeda, some combination of the two or something in between.
Wish them luck. They'll need it since
Karzai stole the votes.
My point in this post is not to rehash the headlines but to consider the process of how a leader changes his or her mind on a very visible and important decision. It's pretty much guaranteed that no matter what Obama eventually decides to do he will be loudly criticized for the decision from one quarter or another. It's tough to go back on a high stakes decision even if the situation has changed so much that the original objectives are no longer in play. That's probably what the economist John Kenneth Galbraith had in mind when he said "In the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof."
What about you? When have you had to reverse a major decision? What process did you go through in evaluating whether or not to change course? If you were advising Obama, what questions, factors or criteria would you encourage him to consider as he considers a change in direction?
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Executive coach Scott Eblin’s goal is to help you succeed at the next level of leadership. Throughout the week, he’ll offer his take on the leadership lessons in the news and his advice on your most pressing leadership questions. A former government executive, Scott is a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and is the author of The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success.
I would advise him to keep the long term strategic interest of our nation's security as the overall goal in his decision-making process rather than his own personal short term political survival. That would be a refreshing ""change from the man who's track record is his political interests override America's interests.
B. T. Best Posted Friday, September 25, 2009 8:27 AMHistory is the best guide: That country is the graveyard of empires. We need to get out because there is no definition of "win". The U.S. was once the liberator and is now the occupier; and soon becoming the motivator and recruiter for the Taliban.
HR Spec Posted Friday, September 25, 2009 3:08 PMObama needs to swallow his pride, change his mind and get our Soldiers out of that quagmire. Its in our national security interest to leave ASAP.
It is very unfortunate that Mr. Obama doesn't have time to review Gen McChrystal's expert and urgent assessment of what is required to win in Afghanistan (submitted 30 August) . . . Mr. Obama has continually pushed and asked for "immediate" action on his URGENT "issues" related to passing his "stimulus" bill, his health reform bill, his fill in the blank bills that have nothing to do with anything related to an immediate issue involving life and death of Americans fighting the enemy.
Let's see . . . what is more urgent than fighting a war against a very potent enemy - being fought by Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen that have volunteered to put their lives on the line, with many having paid the ultimate price or spilling blood, for the freedom of our Nation and the free world?!?
Makes you wonder whose side folks are on.
American Posted Friday, September 25, 2009 8:37 PMLet me get this straight the bad guys where all over the middle east when this all started oppressing everything and everyone. And the United States notice i didnt say the UN since we are the UN!! Went to Bagdad and run the bad guys out then we ran them out of Iraq most of the bad guys ran back to their homes Saudi (buts thats another thing) and some went back to Iran but those hardcore kept fighting and we pushed them into Afghanistan and now we have them on the ropes according to the news and our military and now we have a chance to wipe them out. But now our leadership wont commit the resources. I dont think we should send troops either not since this war has given us technical advantages that dont put our folks in harms way. These guys are the worst of the worst and they want to die so they can be saved by their Mohammad so be it. We can drop leaflets just as they did in previous wars warning the enemy that they have no chance of escape and surrender is the only option. we know the response will be just more fighting since they know nothing else at that point drone them to death literally. We warn them they dont react properly so thier blood is on them not us. And you will have helped clean the world of these bad guys that wanted to meet Alah anyway sounds like a win win for both sides. And then we can put this whole money sucking game to rest and maybe just maybe apply this money into our own country that is falling apart. Thanks for letting me vent. If we dont go get these guys now they will be back this paticular group are like coach roaches they will never change they have been brain washed to long. Obama needs to do the right thing warn them and then destroy them and what they stand for we havent flexed our muscles since WWII and the world sees us as weak Obama has a chance to change that image.
Lets just do it again later Posted Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:08 PMGen. Stanley A. McChrystal's snide critique of some of the Obama administration's lead functionaries has left the president a extreme choice: omit comments that border on rebellion, or terminate his lead commander at a important moment in Afghanistan. I wouldn't want to be in Obama's position right now, even if these two men are gathering now to talk it through. Most dumb to announce public negative remarks about your chief like that though.
Rosanna Huehn Posted Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:47 PM