Even Dr. Oz Can’t Break Medicare
12 hours ago
WE'VE MOVED
Please note that we've moved to a new blog at www.LibraryGrape.com.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
CEO vs. COO - A false difference
I was very impressed by Barack Obama's candor when he said that he is "not an operating officer", then further refined his statement in this week's NV debate:
OBAMA: Now, being president is not making sure that schedules are being run properly or the paperwork is being shuffled effectively. It involves having a vision for where the country needs to go. It involves having the capacity to bring together the best people and being able to spark the kind of debate about how we're going to solve health care; how we're going to solve energy; how we are going to deliver good jobs and good wages; how we're going to keep people in their homes, here in Nevada; and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change. That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the past. That's the kind of leadership that I intend to show as president of the United States.
I am amazed (not surprised) that the Clinton campaign has latched onto this silliness as an actual bone of contention. A quick search on the internet reveals a common definition of a Chief Operating Officer:
The senior manager who is responsible for managing the company's day-to-day operations and reporting them to the chief executive officer (CEO) ... A company needs a chief operating officer (COO) because the CEO is usually too busy to monitor production quotas and other factors on a daily basis.
Hmm, let's see. What does this sounds like in terms of the President's cabinet? Oh yeah, the Chief of Staff:
He is responsible for overseeing the actions of the White House staff, managing the President's schedule, and deciding who is allowed to meet with the President. Because of this duty, the Chief of Staff has been dubbed the "the gatekeeper" and the "co-President".
In the debate where Obama made the above quote, Hillary seemed to miss the proper definition of an operating officer and instead conflated it with a CEO:
You know, I do think that being president is the chief executive officer. And I respect what Barack said about setting the vision, setting the tone, bringing people together. But I think you have to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy. You've got to pick good people, certainly, but you have to hold them accountable every single day.
So, let's see, what responsibilities does a Chief Executive Officer have, among others:
So, in a nutshell, Hillary and Obama basically agree on the CEO functions to be carried out by the President. So, where's the difference of opinion? Does Hillary think the office is also supposed to encompass the role of a Chief of Staff? In an article today, she keeps pressing the point:
- Advocates / promotes organization and stakeholder change related to organization mission
- Looks to the future for change opportunities
- Interfaces between organization and community
- Decides or guides courses of action in operations by staff
- Oversees operations of organization
- Implements plans
"I believe strongly that the president has to run the government and manage the economy. ... I don't think you can have a hands-off approach to the presidency. ... Particularly following President Bush. ... We have seen the disastrous consequences of that kind of approach."
I don't really see how that differs from what Obama said. The concepts of "running the government" and "managing the economy" fit squarely into the mold of a CEO.
Based on the above, who do you agree with? Is there any disagreement? Is Hillary running for Chief of Staff? Ponder the following candid quote from Obama in the NV debate when making up your mind:
"The point in terms of bringing together a team is that you get the best people, and you're able to execute and hold them accountable. But I think that there -- there's something, if we're going to evaluate George Bush and his failures as president, that I think are much more important. He was very efficient. He was on time all the time and, you know, had -- you know, I -- I'm sure he never lost a paper. I'm sure he knows where it is.
"[W]hat he could not do is to listen to perspectives that didn't agree with his ideological predispositions. What he could not do is to bring in different people with different perspectives and get them to work together. What he could not do is to manage the -- the effort to make sure that the American people understood that if we're going to go into war, that there are going to be consequences and there are going to be costs.
"And we have to be able to communicate what those costs are and to make absolutely certain that if we're going to make a decision to send our young men and women into harm's way, that it's based on the best intelligence and that we've asked tough questions before we went in to fight.
"[T]hose are the kinds of failures that have to do with judgment, they have to do with vision, the capacity to inspire people. They don't have to do with whether or not he was managing the bureaucracy properly. That's not to deny that there has to be strong management skills in the presidency. It is to say that what has been missing is the ability to bring people together, to mobilize the country to move us in a better direction, and to be straight with the American people. That's how you get the American people involved."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment