Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump: Our First MBO Presidency
I’ll admit I get irked at times by Bill, Jonah, Charles, Kevin (you know who you are) along with others who still can’t seem to get their heads around Donald Trump, President. They are perpetually indignant over the President’s tweets and want to read utmost conviction into every single thing the Donald says. I find this amazing.
Unfortunate for these conservative pundits, they just can’t understand Donald Trump. Sure, they are used to dog whistle politics, quiet subterfuge, crocodile tears, grandstanding, legal word parsing, pretend ceremony, fake deference and duplicitous words. However, they believe that they can see through all this political interference and determine the truth. Except they can’t. They just know, from years of watching Washington politics, who believes what no matter what they say or how they say it. The fibs, outright lies, exaggerations and political legerdemain are still at play in Washington. But Donald Trump, he stymies them. What is he saying? What is that supposed to mean? They are lost. President Trump has them, well, trumped.
I’ve worked closely with a few powerful CEOs in my life. Most were like Donald, energetic, fun to be around, and quite willing to believe and say just about anything with obvious conviction to make a serious point or promote their venture. I was there to encourage them to paint their pictures within the lines; that is to not get too far ahead or away from reality. More than once, during an analyst meeting or in a meeting with investors, I had to interject, carefully, to pull some of the hotter hyperbole, back to earth.
These men are promoters. They are there to seal the deal, promote the company and move along the strategy. They are not securities law experts or even as intimate with the financial details of their own operations as they should be. They want to be the biggest, the best, the most successful and the most profitable. They live for superlatives and set extremely high goals. If you aim high enough, they believe, even if you fall short, you will still out jump the competition.
Politicians are not like that. Their motives are polluted with the retention of power. They are more clever than they are wise. They are as much concerned with making their political adversaries look bad as they are with governing. Political strategy is not about value or efficiency, it is about constituencies and votes. Politicians are actually considering ways to slow down automation and tax it. If that is not the best differentiator when considering the perverse motives of politics, then there are none.
Donald Trump has no appreciation for this kind of retail politics. He’s a business guy, through and through, our first management by objectives CEO, the MBO President. What does he want? Control over our borders. It’s part of his job description and he’s determined to achieve it. And he wants the world to take our leadership seriously. He wants to reverse the diminution of our military. He wants fair trade deals. He wants a simplified tax code with lower rates. He wants elections unblemished by voter fraud. He wants our multinationals to repatriate their profits from overseas. He wants free, open and vibrant health insurance and health care markets. He wants a judiciary that considers constitutional intent, not precedent, first when judging our laws. That’s about it.
OK, he did say he wanted to improve our infrastructure, however just how this would be achieved or funded was never addressed. I can only assume that this goal is on the back burner for now.
What is missing from this agenda? Two big conservative bugaboos: deficits and entitlements. Trump steered clear of these elephants. My take is this: if we tackle the stated goals above maybe then we can find the courage and wherewithal to tackle entitlements and deficits. Much depends on economic growth and the reciprocal growth in government receipts.
President Donald Trump is not an eloquent man. He’s a businessman. He doesn’t filter his words through ideology. His ideology is reflected in the goals and objectives he sets for himself and his administration. The idea is simple: move the country to a new place in the following ways, 1, 2, 3, 4… You can count them on your fingers and toes. If there are some things you don’t like, OK, oppose them. Trump is ready for practical as well as ideological arguments. If you are in the minority, you still have a chance. I direct you to the Freedom Caucus and the first attempt at Obamacare reform.
Back to Kevin, Jonah, Charles and Bill, don’t dismiss our president as un-serious just because he is abrupt or speaks awkwardly. Unlike politicians, President Trump is more wise than he is clever. Measure him by his objectives and how successful he is in achieving them. At the end of his four years, we will all give him his big HR review. It will be simple. If he’s been successful and wants the job, we’ll hire him for another four years. If he’s not, we’ll all move on. That’s the way MBO works.
Published in Politics
It isn’t my fault you’ve got no style, no panache. Also, I do like The Police, and Sting. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t. Except them not having any style or panache.
I keep saying he is the President, and we have to give him a chance, celebrate when he does something well (Gorsuch) and criticize when he doesn’t (and I choose not to list those). I don’t like him. I don’t respect him. And I hope that he gets things done. Period.
OK. I’ve looked. I scanned the whole piece.
I don’t know what “MBO” means. Would it be too much to ask that you define it in the first paragraph?
A reader should not have to dig for it. The writer is obliged to define it for the reader.
Eightyninety percent of the heat of this comment is not directed at you, Doug; I’m using this as an excuse to vent my exasperation at hundreds of emails and articles I’ve read over the years written by people who just were not thinking of their readers as they wrote. Sorry.It’s not a matter of secret knowledge. It’s just trying to understand vs. playing gotcha.
It’s not a new thing to have rhetorical devices that use language in a non-literal way. It’s very common, and it’s not just something for literature. We use them naturally, some more than others.
It’s wider than just Trump. The gotcha game is responsible for many things being called gaffes that really shouldn’t be. Trump takes it to another level, of course. It’s entirely acceptable to prefer a different way of communicating, but it’s no help to worry about it at this point.
I’ll give an example. When Trump says something about a Muslim ban early in the campaign. You can take it literally and yell back that he can’t do that, or you can understand that it won’t happen exactly as tweeted and understand it as taking the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously and intending to do what he can to prevent it.
A more recent example is the “Obama wire tapped me” tweet. People reacted like it was precision language when it clearly wasn’t. People responded as if he was saying Obama personally snuck into Trump tower and placed listening devices on the phone lines. The only reason to take the statement that way is if you don’t want to understand. The meaning is obvious. Obama is a standin for his administration and wire tap just means spying. The exact method isn’t relevant.
I have met Trump in business contexts several times and never saw him as presidential material. I was pleased at his election because HRC is so awful. I am moving from optimism to despair. He is not driving tax reform or healthcare reform. He is not building public support for any of this. Some good stuff on regulations is happening in the background but the big lifts require sustained effort. He needs to be enlarging his mandate not spinning off in all directions and by his own lack of focus putting attention on shiny objects like this stupid Russia stuff.
Good CEO’s keep their eye on the ball making their goals the institution’s goals. They sell internally and externally. I am just not seeing this.
Politicians are risk averse. Businessmen like calculated risks. Some, like Trump, are riskier than others.
My understanding is that America knows this, at least enough to vote him in. We are saying the country is so bad off, going too far the wrong direction, that we will risk some craziness in order to turn the train around. We really do have to pick up the train, turn it around and put it back on the tracks going the other way. You need a bit of crazy to do that.
As far as I can tell, it means reacting to his statements the way the viewers are reacting in this video:
I was nevertrump during the campaign, but since the election I have learned to pay attention to what Trump does, and not what he says. He says a lot of stupid things which lead to hysterical attacks by Dems and the media, but the Dems and the media are going to attack him hysterically no matter what he says, so it all seems pretty insignificant to me.
So far, Trump seems to have surrounded himself with pretty bright people, and his ideas get filtered through them. So far, that has been working out fine as far as I am concerned. (Again, emphasis on the “so far.”) And since I am not expecting him to accomplish anything monumental, I will be quite satisfied if he just manages to undo the things that Obama imposed with his phone and his pen.
I was amused listening to Peter on the flagship podcast, expressing his incredulity that Trump said some stupid things. Really? Peter, where have you been for the last two years? Of course Trump said stupid things. That’s what Trump does. And I am not buying into this narrative that there is some Machiavellian genius behind the stupid comments. They’re just stupid. But I’ll live with that.
I was hoping MBO meant Management Buy Out. Maybe next time.
I wonder if the difference in reaction comes from a difference in what people are looking for from the President. Some want to be inspired, uplifted and led. Others want a job done. If you’re looking for someone to incarnate, or even express, the better natures of 300m Americans or the ideals of the nation, then DJT isn’t your man. On the other hand, if the plumber you’ve hired is getting on with unblocking the drain you don’t care what he’s wearing, and don’t much mind what he says about sport, politics or whatever: it’s results that matter.
It would be nice to have both: a dreamer and a doer. It would be nice if we had a free market in health care and a giant tax reduction. And a balanced budget. And if saying mean things about Vladimir made him give back Crimea. And free trade and open borders. And fair trade and the wall. And law and order, and federalism, and an end to the war on drugs, and an end to the opioid epidemic.
Doing stuff is hard. Dreaming is easier. (Except when the mean people (Reid, Putin, Pelosi, Assad, Schumer and co) start doing things, of course…)
The duplicitous crook has several things going for him: He is rational, I know what to expect from him, and he’s not likely to be either foolish or stupid (aka, “nincompoop”).
For me, I can happily deal with a chief executive who’s full of bluster. (Hell, that’s how I am.) What really matters is the results: are we generating jobs? Are we generating growth? Are we paying down the debt, or at least not creating more? Are we being defended? Are we safe?
It’s kind of like going to the barber … the chatter doesn’t really matter, it just passes the time while the real work is getting done. Trump is full of chatter. But I’m still waiting to see if the job gets done.
And unlike Trump himself, I don’t care if Trump knows what he’s doing. He could be Jacques Clouseau for all I care, bumbling and stumbling, but at the end of the movie, does the bad guy get caught? If he has the good fortune to be surrounded by people who actually do their jobs well, then I don’t care about Trump’s bluster and chatter. Twitter’s perfect for him, and I don’t care.
But let’s be clear — that leeway and tolerance only applies if he gets the job done. I think we’re still too early to judge whether he’s succeeding or failing. I will say, though, that I’m perfectly willing to praise him or eject him, either way. The news media is concerned about the circus, because that’s how they make money. We’re worried about the actual performance.
I have trouble agreeing with this. MBO has attributes that are not present in the way that President Trump governs: clear objectives that are easy to understand and are articulately stated; objectives that are consistent and are prioritized consistently unless new data or facts emerge; and clear plans are developed to achieve the objectives. Trump fails on all three. Trump does not communicate clearly. Even his fans require a “Trump interpreter” function. He is inconsistent and changes priorities frequently without new data or explaining why he changed.
As the saying goes, the best swordsman doesn’t fear the second-best swordsman; he fears the worst swordsman because he doesn’t know what the idiot will do.
So what was the objective that President Trump was trying to accomplish with this statement. It seemed to me that the discussion that it created significantly detracted from what he was trying to accomplish with his legislative program at the time. It was not smart politics.
Regardless of party/ideology, I often wonder if folks who write these sort of statements HOPE the R’s losing the Senate/House in ’18 happens. Just as a means of reassuring themselves that there is still a sort of…predictability in elections and campaigning that was violated by Donald Trump.
The period of “predictable” politics that outlined the period from 1992-2016 isn’t coming back, folks.
This. This. This.
That position was understandable, even acceptable, before the election. But he has the job now. I doubt that anyone using the better-than-Hillary line would ever dream of telling their own boss “At least I’m better than the guy you didn’t hire”.
I don’t think it was a big scheme. Just a reaction.
Right now Trump is doing neither of those.
And there are those who are just simply entertained by the interactions between Trump and…well…just about everyone in DC. No real reason to think beyond that.
Agreed.
Trump’s contribution to his businesses is that he is a brand. Other people have run The Trump Organization. I can’t imagine that he has been any part of the day-to-day operations for decades. It’s just not possible given the limit of there being only 24 hours in a day. This lack of executive experience has been my greatest concern with a Trump presidency.
Being a brand is a full-time job. And he has done a great job with that. He has kept his name front and center in the public eye for decades. He has been active in politics, he’s been married three times, he has “written” fifteen books, he has been the star of a reality television show, and he has attended countless jet-set parties–there’s just not a lot of time in there for board and project meetings.
I’ve been a Mitt Romney supporter, and I would have much preferred Romney to Trump. Despite what his opponents say about him, I live in Massachusetts and I can say without any hesitation that Romney transformed (turned around?) this state. He would have been a great president.
But I’m willing to give Trump a chance to find his feet. I think underneath all of his bravado, he does care about the future of this country and the rest of the world. Some of his values match mine. And he knows what he wants, and I think a year from now, we’ll like what he has done–that is, what he hired someone else to do. :)
He’s learning, but it is not easy. The two parties are not exactly on speaking terms.
I don’t understand the idea that we should shun everyone that is critical of someone with an R next to their name. That is blatant partisanship and it is no better on the Republican side than it is on the Democratic side.
During the election, I kept hearing promises from the Trump supporters that they would be critical of him when he deserved it. Now, whenever Trump does something objectively stupid, his supporters continue to criticize the people that criticize Trump.
Trump deserves criticism often, as did Obama and Bush before him. We are not a country that worships our leaders (and we are not a country that swears personal loyalty to our leaders).
Bush was versed in MBO principles, and I think he started his Presidency that way, but 9-11 changed all that. In addition, his “compassionate conservatism” got in the way of stating clear conservative objectives. Unless objectives are simple and clear, MBO doesn’t work.
We do see this differently. If anything, I would say he rolled up his sleeves and applied everything he every knew about MBO to the problem of preventing future terrorist attacks.
That was what I thought I saw. He was so well organized in his work. I was really impressed.
In fact, I saw his well-organized mind in every problem he approached.
Interesting.
From the standpoint of daily work, I think he will go down as the most productive president in our history.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. :)
Management By Objectives – Document a limited number of new strategic objectives (changes) for an enterprise. Make sure that there are measurable ways to determine progress. Push these strategies down to the lowest levels in the organization. Mangers should be evaluated on their own similar personal objectives that dovetail with the corporate strategy. Hold the organization accountable by periodically evaluating managers and measuring progress on objectives.
Alas, as a big Mitt fan, he did not run.
Management by objectives works best with the “balanced scorecard,” which is a decision-making tool. It’s a chart on which the objectives are written across the top and the possible actions to achieve those objectives are written down the side. Each action is graded as to its likely effect on the objective. And both management by objectives and the balanced scorecard work with zero-based budgeting, which requires again the formulating of those governing company objectives. The objectives come from hashing out the company’s mission and purpose.
I would think on a practical level, Trump’s real estate construction work experience would accomplish the same thing for him in terms of getting him organized around his ultimate objectives. I hope so.
Owen, maybe, “management by objective”? Ahhh, DK beat me to it… :-)
I am sorry you are irked by really smart people, Doug, but they have a right to their opinions too. I really do not know where to begin with this piece. I’ve read several like it, and, to me, they totally miss the point. People like Bill, Jonah, Charles, and Kevin are not saying they do not support the President, no matter what he does. They support him when they can, and oppose him when they have to.
We all know that Trump was a big important CEO. And, by the way, your painting of those kind of people does not exactly warm the cockles of anyone’s heart, as to what kind of people they are. And, besides, the United States of America is not a business. We do need a CEO. Not should we want one. What kind of business do you know with nuclear weapons? America is the best nation in the history of the world, a light unto other nations, if you will. We have over three hundred million people who belong to this nation. And the purpose of this great nation, and it’s government, is to secure the rights which God has given us, as our Declaration states. It seems that Donald Trump does not truly understand that. And the worse thing is that he doesn’t try.
You say that he is wise, not clever. I emphatically beg to differ. It is not wise not to understand that speaking recklessly, about tearing up trade treaties, for example, when the whole world is listening, is not good. It is not wise to tweet several times a day, because something pops into your head, and you need to get it out. Nor is it wise to keep on harping on old slights, or perceived injustices, because you are aggrieved. The Presidency should be bigger than Donald Trump’s ego.
And that’s the point, isn’t it? Donald Trump is President now. He has done some good things. His Supreme Court pick was excellent. But, as American citizens, who desperately want our country to succeed, people like Bill, Jonah, Charles, and Kevin (and me too, for that matter) must continue to speak up. We love our country as much as you too. We may irk you, but we see it as our duty!
@dougkimball unfortunately brought up my favorite subject: management by objectives. I’ve spent at least a quarter of my editorial life editing business books, and I am huge fan of MBO. I used it myself when I ran a couple of volunteer organizations, and I even gave the balanced scorecard to my kids for their big decisions like choosing a college. :) I tried explaining it to our local government. Once you’ve been bitten, it becomes a way of life and of thinking.
If the last century was the century of American business, we can thank Peter Drucker for that because his MBO business model has been responsible for bringing CEOs up to speed quickly and enabling them to run great global companies. CEOs often get to where they are because of flashes of brilliance somewhere along the line. Many of them have very little executive experience. MBO can put a new CEO on a productive leadership path almost overnight. Success always follows.