Leadership lapses in NSA spying, Obamacare rollout

President Obama claims little or no foreknowledge of the NSA spying on allies or the 'debacle' of the new health-care law's website. Are there valuable lessons in leadership from this?

AP Photo
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is sworn in Oct. 30 prior to testifying before a House panel on the difficulties in implementing the Affordable Care Act.

Critics are taking President Obama to task for allegedly not knowing beforehand about two startling revelations: US spying on top allies and a lack of preparation for the Oct. 1 rollout of “Obamacare.” To many, it is difficult to believe that a buck-stops-here chief executive didn’t know of either one.

In her testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took full responsibility for the “debacle” of the HealthCare.gov website, trying to let Mr. Obama off the hook. Meanwhile, one news report claims the president knew this past summer that the National Security Agency (NSA) had been bugging the phones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

If we take Obama at his word that he didn’t know, then Americans might ask if any modern president will ever enter the Oval Office in the 21st century with enough leadership qualities to conduct the giant orchestra that is the federal bureaucracy.

After one recent administration scandal – the Internal Revenue Service’s tracking of tea party groups – longtime Obama adviser David Axelrod said the government is so vast that no president can possibly know everything that goes on beneath him. True enough. But it would seem Obama might have been more diligent in tracking the implementation of his signature achievement, the Affordable Care Act. And he might have asked during his daily security briefings why the United States knows so much about Ms. Merkel’s views.

Is there an excuse for these presumed lapses? Leadership expert Michael Maccoby, based on his extensive work with businesses, says today’s larger and more complex organizations demand that leaders possess many more traits than in the past. Leaders are expected to inspire others yet also pay attention to detail. They must set a moral example yet manage people to get results. They must be heroic as an influencer yet humble after making a mistake. They must both motivate and measure. They must hold forth with ideas yet hold those below them – or themselves – accountable for failures.

The definitions of leadership are as plentiful as leadership consultants. One count puts the number of definitions at about 130 (and consultants in the thousands). Many of recent newly elected presidents prepare madly for the office. They read presidential biographies and consult past White House workers. Yet once in office, they still somehow have a long learning curve with what seems like an increasing number of scandals or lapses of leadership.

Two assumptions must be challenged about all this: One is that leadership resides only in one person. And two, that every person is limited in his or her ability to gain the qualities of leadership.

In judging Obama after these new revelations, critics must recognize that followers are equally responsible in making an organization tick. Relationships that function well are always two-way, not one-way. If blame is to be assigned about the NSA spying or Obamacare rollout, look at all those involved, not only the top guy.

And in any probe of such incidents, Congress and others must not only criticize lousy leadership but also find ways to enable a president to develop more qualities needed to perform better. To belittle a president as incapable of change is to assume any future president might be incapable of change. The US can’t afford that presumption of limitations.

In today’s charged and polarized Washington, it is not the default behavior to help the president be a better leader or hold subordinates equally responsible for lapses in what is termed “followership.” 

All of Washington is being held accountable by Americans. Public trust in government edged even lower in the latest Pew survey – before the government shutdown. Only 19 percent of those surveyed say that they trust the federal government to do what is right just about always or most of the time. That is down seven points since January.

When an orchestra messes up a symphony, the audience blames both the conductor and the players who were out of tune or dropped their instrument or misread the score. It also expects the conductor and players to eventually master the piece of music, especially if the conductor or players fess up to their mistakes. Can we not expect the same in Washington?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Leadership lapses in NSA spying, Obamacare rollout
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today