Management in Action  >>  US Economy and Policy

Trends and Phenomena
There has been a lot of talk about whether we're starting to see "green shoots"—signs of economic recovery—breaking through the recession's rubble.
 

We may be, and if so, it certainly would be cause for relief (and celebration). But we're also intrigued about "green shoots" of another sort. We think we might be seeing—kindly note our lack of certainty—incipient signs that the Administration's full-throttle political hegemony, powering along like a locomotive since Barack Obama took office with a Democratic Congress, might be beginning to give way to more healthy bipartisan debate. Our "evidence"? First, that Dick Cheney's critical comments about national security issues are getting traction in the media (even if Cheney, the man, is not). And second, that Californians voted overwhelmingly to block further tax-and-spend mayhem. Two events don't guarantee a trend, but it would sure be better for the country if this pair did.

The reason: Everyone knows ideas get better when they're energetically inspected, batted around by skeptics, and poked and probed from all angles. This is as true in business as in government. Everyone has been in a meeting where a solution was improved not just by discussion but by dissension. Everyone has seen a project exceed expectations because somewhere along the way a naysayer interjected: "Hold on a minute. Is this the best we can do?"

The Perils of Uncontested Leadership


Just think of how recent political history proves the point. Jimmy Carter's disastrous Presidency in the late '70s—with its sky-high unemployment and inflation and off-the-rails economic policies—was made possible by a yes-yes-yes congressional majority. Ultimately, Ronald Reagan was able to right matters, not just by installing Republican policies but by formulating a new approach in conjunction with the feisty Democratic opposition.

Similarly, Bill Clinton's first two years in office weren't nearly as successful as his last six, when Newt Gingrich spearheaded the Republican Party's strong counterpoint to Democratic initiatives. Surely, the sustained prosperity of that era was aided by the thoughtful (read: fierce) debate.

Finally, you need only look at George W. Bush's first six years in power to see the downside of one-party rule. The government spent like drunks at a liquor mart, abandoning fiscal principles and steering us into a difficult war.

But our point here is not to repudiate any particular President. Rather, it is to underscore the consequences of uncontested leadership. Arguably, the most effective Presidencies of the past 30-plus years have been those of Reagan and Clinton, and both clearly benefited from the kind of debate that comes from a loyal opposition. That's why we were so heartened to see Cheney's recent comments featured on many front pages beside the President's remarks. The differing opinions will undoubtedly enlarge the conversation and might even lead to a more effective, centrist outcome. As for California, the recent vote also strikes us as promising. Finally, people are saying, "Enough!" to financial irresponsibility. In fact, if the 2-1 margin means anything, it suggests that California residents are shouting to make their voices heard.

Encourage Real Debate

The lesson for business? Create an inclusive culture that encourages real debate. The fact is, as a leader, it can be tempting to shut out all the "noise." Back-and-forth slows things. Dissenters often come in very annoying packages. Who hasn't met a company gadfly who makes everyone insane with his or her persnicketiness?

But you can't give in to the lure of head-nodding. Whether you're running a team or a business empire, press yourself to reward the best ideas, no matter whose they are. Make heroes of the people who put forth unpopular views. And endure the cranks; indeed, force yourself to hear them out. Their opposition to the status quo is often a form of passion and caring for the company.

Now, we started this column by suggesting that two events might be "green shoots" of a small movement toward more bipartisan debate in this country. But even if we're wrong—and here's hoping we're not—our point remains. Every enterprise benefits when ideas get their full and vigorous due.

Pushback invariably increases payback.
 

This question and answer originally appeared in Business Week magazine on May 29, 2009.

Charles Richards
5/30/2009 3:11 PM

Charles Richards 1968 Pebble Creek Dr. Canton, Mi. 48188-2095 Charlesrichards7015@yahoo.com Jack & Suzy Welch This is in regard to your “The Power of Pushback” column in the June 9, 2009 issue of Business Week. I agree that it would be good if “the Administrations full-throttle political hegemony, powering along like a locomotive” was being moderated, but I don’t think your evidence supports your argument. Recent polls show that the Democrats are more trusted on national security. The fact that Cheney’s Guantanamo speech struck a chord with the American people is not a tribute to their rationality and maturity. Obama (whom I did not vote for) was quite right when he pointed out that we can, and have, keep terrorists securely locked up in mainland prisons. The reaction of the American people is similar to their irrational response to a foreign company managing six of our ports. Similarly, your argument about California’s voters is wide of the mark. Their no votes were more a case of childish frustration than a rejection of higher taxes. They, like the American people with regard to Medicare and Social Security, are upset that they cannot have benefits on the cheap. As best I recall, something on the order of $90 billion out of $139 billion in spending is due to voter initiatives. If they have the power, they must accept the responsibility. Sometime in the ‘70s, the voters passed the Gann amendment, which limited increases in spending to the rate of inflation and the growth in the population. The state’s economy subsequently grew faster than the national economy, but that wasn’t sufficient. In 1988 and 1990, the voters passed amendments to make exceptions for education and transportation. They have spent the succeeding years in unsuccessfully trying to square the circle of benefits and taxes. They lack the collective maturity and discipline to do so. But you are correct when you say that a concentration of power on one side is generally not healthy and entails risks. Agree or disagree, I always turn to your column first. Sincerely yours, Charles Richards

 
Roger Bloyce
5/31/2009 9:31 AM

Dick Cheney's critical comments about national security issues are getting traction in the media, which is a sign of healthy bipartisan debate? Where have you been lately? Dick Cheney's critical comments were largely self-serving lies that have been thoroughly denounced by prominent Republicans, such military authorities as Colin Powell, David Petraeus and Robert Gates, and thoroughly repudiated in the media. Here's Frank Rich in today's NY Times: "At the McClatchy newspapers’ Washington bureau, the reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel detailed 10 whoppers. With selective quotations, Cheney falsified the views of the director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, on the supposed intelligence value of waterboarding. Equally bogus was Cheney’s boast that his administration had “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.” Are you saying, Jack, that you approve of torture? What media outlets have you been reading lately, Rush Limbaugh? The New York Daily News?

 
Doug Williams
6/1/2009 8:29 AM

Why is uncontested leadership bad in government, but OK for Chairman/CEO combinations in corporations? Seems to me the CEO operations guy should be challenged to stay on strategic course by the board, led by a separate Chairman.

 
Roger Bloyce
6/2/2009 5:50 PM

Dick Cheney's critical comments about national security issues are getting traction in the media? What media have you been reading, Jack?

 
 
     
Back to top