Lessons on Leadership from Honest Abe

Jordan Summers

For the past few months Doris Kearns Goodwin’s meticulous record of our nation’s 16^th President’s journey from the circuit court in Illinois to the fateful night of April 14^th, 1865, has served as a supplement to my studies at the DeVos Graduate School of Management. As I absorbed Goodwin’s Team of Rivals I have found a number of great lessons which can be broadly applied to the subject of leadership. 

It was reported that in the time leading up to his inauguration President Obama consumed Team of Rivals as he contemplated the construction of his cabinet.  Lincoln’s decision to build a cabinet filled with professional rivals, some of whom came to Washington with their own personal agendas and others still reeling from his shocking nomination and subsequent election which had squelched their own ambition for the Executive Office, is the central theme of the book.  However, it does a great disservice to Goodwin’s extensive work as well as to Lincoln’s life to ignore the many other lessons that can be drawn from the book.

Timing is an often overlooked element of leadership. Lincoln was able to use his ability to read the pulse of an entire nation to allow him to optimally time some of his most important actions.  Nowhere is this more evident that in his timing of the Emancipation Proclamation.  In Goodwin’s account, it is clear that if Lincoln had given into the pressures of abolitionists and members of his cabinet, and made his intention to emancipate slaves too early on in the war, public support for the war efforts would have waned.  However, if Lincoln had waited too long, the boost in support provided by the proclamation, as well as the ability to recruit black soldiers, would not have come soon enough to turn the tide in the war.  The issue of timing is particularly important in the context of the present-day; as leaders face the challenge of maintaining functioning organizations, communities etc., in the face of necessary layoffs, budget cuts, etc.

While the economic and societal challenges that leaders face today are significant, many of these challenges seem much more manageable in comparison to the life and times of Abe Lincoln.  From an early age Lincoln became accustomed to struggle and pain.  By the age of seven Lincoln had already experienced tumult as his family became impoverished, and at the age of nine Lincoln became accustomed to tragedy with the death of his young mother.  Young Lincoln dealt with these challenges with a humor and resolve that would prove vital to his existence further in his career.  Through failed political campaigns and professional pursuits Lincoln maintained his steady and relentless pursuit of his goals.  For example, in 1855 Lincoln was hired by a prominent attorney from Pittsburgh to help represent the defendant in a patent case which had generated national attention.  Hired for his low hourly rate and his connections in the Illinois’ legal community Lincoln saw the case as a tremendous opportunity for career advancement.  However, when the case was moved to Cincinnati, Lincoln was frozen out of the case after months of extensive work by the lead attorney Edwin Stanton.  After experiencing an understandable level of disappointment, the Reaper Trial served to further solidify Lincoln’s resolve to achieve professional growth.  As a testament to Lincoln’s ability to put aside personal gripes, Stanton would later become Lincoln’s Secretary of War, and one of his most trusted companions.

The most gripping example of Lincoln’s toughness and resolve came in the midst of the Civil War, when his young son died.  While his wife was stricken with uncontrollable grief, Lincoln was forced to reserve his grief for the few private moments he had.  Beyond the loss of his son, Lincoln was faced with the overwhelming challenge of overseeing the bloodiest war in our nation’s history.  Through it all he was able to look beyond his earthly suffering as he led the nation through its most trying times.

After reading Team of Rivals I would ultimately say that what I see as the single most important element of Lincoln’s leadership is his commitment to the anti-slavery cause.  For what truly drives an effective leader is purpose.  As Goodwin states in regards to Lincoln’s commitment to the anti-slavery movement – “Once he committed himself… (Lincoln) demonstrated a singular tenacity and authenticity of feeling.  Ambition and conviction (were) united…”  Lincoln set his mind on an objective and used his God-given gifts which were honed through the fires of life to change the course of our nation’s history.

The Hidden Costs of U.S. Defense Budget Cuts

Jordan Summers

 An unfortunate and unjust consequence of the current administration’s efforts to “balance” the budget amidst dramatic spending is the reduction of our nation’s defense budget.  The injustice is that the brave and selfless men and women who serve in our armed forces are most adversely affected by these reductions.  By forcing the Pentagon to find ways to cut spending, we are sending the message that the lives of our soldiers are somehow less valuable than before.  Most distressing is the long-term impact that significant budget cuts will have on the safety and effectiveness of our troops.  As we are currently fighting multiple wars, the main concern for our military’s leadership is to direct spending into these efforts, thus forcing cuts to be made on programs dedicated to the future effectiveness of our armed forces and the tools we equip them with. 

Some argue that the fact that we spend dramatically more on defense than any other country in the world reflects irresponsibility and wastefulness—I disagree.  I would argue that our higher spending illustrates the elevated value that we place on the lives of our most courageous citizens.

It is true that we can increase the efficiency of our defense spending, just as government-contracted defense firms can increase their efficiency and effectiveness.  It is also true that steps should be taken to rein in costs.  However, dramatic changes take time and money, both of which are constrained by our current conflicts, and are only further exacerbated by the budget cuts. 

Failure to remain on the forefront of military technology will undermine our foreign policy initiatives and place our soldiers in increasingly vulnerable positions.  The gap between the equipment at their disposal and those of our enemies will decrease—which is an ominous development.  Let me make it clear that I am not advocating war as an effective method of foreign policy.  However, my hope is that an army equipped to address the evolving demands of military conflict would provide added support for our leaders in their foreign policy efforts—geared, of course, to avoid military conflict whenever possible.

While the primary concern is the effect budget cuts will have on our soldiers, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the effect that they have had on our growing unemployment rate.  Defense contractors like General Dynamics, Boeing, and BAE Systems are faced with the reality that cancelled defense programs leave them with many well-paid employees without a role to fill.  While the administration is quick to hype their “job creation” efforts (which are often only temporary employment) they fail to mention the permanent jobs that are being destroyed to fund them.

While the job loss resulting from defense budget cuts is devastating, the most inexcusable cost of these reductions is that they undermine the future safety of our men and women in uniform.

The Great Health Care Debate

Jordan Summers

Does our current health care system meet the standards of quality, accessibility, affordability, and equality that we as the most prosperous and free nation in the world should hold ourselves to?  To deny that our system is currently flawed is to take a position of ignorance and fail to recognize that our system is falling short in each of those categories.  Our current mix of private and public participation in the industry is clearly failing, and there seems to be two directions that health care reform can take. 

Our new administration’s plans for health care are consistent with many of the other strategies they’ve designed and implemented thus far.  As a result of the Obama administration’s initial spending, as well as the spending of the Bush administration, we have been somewhat desensitized to the mind-boggling spending by our government. Some of this spending dwarfs the potential bill for the president’s health care plan.  More central to the debate are the effects they will have on the quality and affordability of our health care, as well as the long-term effects they will have on one of our nation’s most profitable and stable industries.  The main reason for concern on both of these fronts is the more involved role the federal government will take in the health care industry under the proposed reforms.

Essentially, the proposal outlines a public plan in which the government would serve as a health-insurance company providing coverage to all.  However, a government-sponsored plan would immediately generate many problems.  Primarily, it will create an environment where the government will “compete” directly with private insurance companies.  Without being subject to the same risks and constraints that confront a private firm, the government would have a distinctly unfair competitive advantage.  With the ability to offer artificially lower prices, companies would be driven to move from the plans they currently provide for their employees to the new ‘public plan’.  This would directly undermine President Obama’s repeated claims that his initiatives would not have an effect on those who are currently satisfied with their health care plans. 

With a public plan, costs would be driven upward as hospitals, physicians, and drug companies will have no incentive to price competitively, similar to the way they do now.  With a single-payer system there would be no reason for individuals to be concerned with the prices of the service they’re receiving.  Currently this effect can be seen not only with employer provided insurance but also with Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.  Essentially people have no incentive to make a conscious decision about the necessity of the care they are receiving or how much it costs because someone else is paying the balance.

The real solution can be found in increasing the amount of competition within the industry.  Driving down the costs and increasing doctors’, hospitals’, insurers, and drug companies’ incentive to provide service and products of the highest quality at the lowest cost, the same way that industries are forced to do in order to survive.  Many companies have seen a significant reduction in their health care after modifying their plans to provide a stipend for health care up to a certain amount, say $1,000.  In this instance the individual would be able to use that $1,000 for any health care service they receive, with insurance and a deductible kicking in for any expense beyond that $1,000.  If the employee doesn’t use the full balance in the year, what’s left is theirs to keep.  What this creates is the incentive for individuals to make health care decisions based on price and necessity.

Undoubtedly within a free-market approach like the one above there would still be a significant portion of the population who lack coverage; however with lower prices resulting from increased competition the need for insurance would be greatly reduced.  Also, with the emergence of social-marketing as one of the most effective methods of attracting customers, health care providers would be encouraged to extend their services to the least fortunate members of our society to increase their social impact. 

With increased competition in the pursuit of customers who are forced to shop around for their own care we can see the dramatic transformation of an industry which will provide the world a stark example of the best way to harness the power of personal choice and competition.

A Time for Change: Remaking the Grand Old Party

Jordan Summers

The Grand Old Party is suffering from some significant credibility issues.  After being completely overwhelmed during the 2008 election, the Republican Party is facing a period of significant choice.  After getting fat and happy, the party is confronted with a landmark decision regarding the direction the party should take in its pursuit of positions of influence.  As an individual who voted Republican in the two elections, I find the immediate reaction of the conservative base alarming. 

Take a look at the current faces of the Republican Party.  Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and to some extent George W. Bush are among the most recognizable and vocal members of the GOP.  Even those who seemed to show significant promise have fallen. Take for example Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, whose inept response to President Obama’s address in February sent him back into relative obscurity, or Nevada Senator John Ensign, whose recent revelation of an affair doused any presidential ambitions he may have had.  The call from many within the conservative base to reemphasize the party’s alleged hypocritical and irrational “values” will only amplify the leadership’s failure to live up to those values.

Undoubtedly many in the right are immeasurably frustrated by the fact that these individuals still represent the party.  Too often Republican leaders, who have most vocally preached the morals and values, have undermined the party’s credibility by violating the same principles and values which they have demanded of others.  The acceptance of the recent failures of the Bush administration, and taking responsibility for the poor decisions of many of the party’s leaders are the first steps back to relevance.

Ultimately, the problem is that the party has lost direction. Its leaders once took a stance of great humility, and deferred to the power of the American people rather than government programs and bureaucracies.  Currently, the party seems more focused on returning to power than self-improvement. The GOP should return to being a party that emphasizes the vital role of families in our society—without placing a constraining definition of what constitutes a family.  It should be a party that works to get out of the way of the people and businesses, a party that allows the true competitive advantage of the United States to take hold.

By becoming the party that leads by example instead of preaching, and by reaching across party lines when it’s reasonable, the party can transform its public image.  In fact, there are already signs of opportunity for the Republican Party to reach out to independent voters who support many of the Democrats’ social views but express significant concern over the fiscal policies of our new administration.  It is values like fiscal conservatism and personal choice that can help bridge the gap and attain voters