Chicago Tribune, May 5, 2005, Thursday

Copyright 2005 Chicago Tribune Company
Chicago Tribune

May 5, 2005 Thursday
Chicago Final Edition

SECTION: COMMENTARY ; ZONE C; Pg. 23

HEADLINE: When backing off is a sign of leadership

BYLINE: By Samuel B. Bacharach.

BODY:
The ongoing debate about John Bolton, President Bush's beleaguered nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, illustrates a classic dilemma leaders often face when appointing "their people" to key positions: When does sticking with your candidate show an obsession with face-saving and narrow political interests rather than a commitment to a broad strategic agenda?

Sometimes sticking with your candidate becomes politically costly. Good leaders understand when the time has come to move on. Maybe the time has come for Bush to consider that possibility.

Most leaders instinctively choose people who they believe will follow and support their agenda. They need to have a sense that individuals in positions of power--who are accountable to them--will see the world in the same way that they see the world. For most Bush administration appointments, this seems to be the primary litmus test. The administration has consistently demanded that appointees represent not only the ideology but also the administration's specific agenda. The administration has demonstrated little concern for the broader interests of Congress, state governments and the American people.

Sometimes, leaders lose a tremendous amount of "political capital" by ignoring the concerns of key groups in their organization. In their pursuit of controlling their agenda, they risk eroding the support of key constituents. The case of John Bolton demonstrates how a leader (Bush) can actually tarnish his position by pushing his agenda unilaterally.

For Bush, just as for any other leader, it is critical to find the right balance between administrative control and broad support. Although it may be essential for a leader to have his people in administrative control, effective leaders also understand that if they go too far, the people they ultimately appoint will face an uphill battle in implementing their agenda. Because the legitimacy of any person in a leadership position--like the future U.S. ambassador to the United Nations--is partly based on the perception of the individual's character and partly based on the perception of the degree of support he brings.

The reality of organizational politics is that the hiring or promotion process at more senior levels is informally one of advice and consent. By seeking the consent of a broader and diverse group of interests, leaders can hope to enhance the legitimacy of their appointee, thereby effectively increasing and sustaining their own base of power. Hiring or appointing key leadership positions becomes an opportunity for a leader to expand his coalition within the organization. The Bush administration has obviously forgotten this key lesson of governance, and the Bolton nomination is threatening to chip away at Bush's existing coalition. Installing Bolton, in the context of the challenges, will simply be another jolt, sending the message out that will inevitably weaken all future nominees, including U.S. Supreme Court justices. Sticking with Bolton's nomination could have the effect of weakening the president's power, rather than extending it.

Stepping back takes courage and some humility. Often, once a candidate gets further down the hiring process, leaders can find themselves falling into a pit-bull mentality, where the goal becomes getting "their man" through the process, rather than achieving an effective long-term solution--leading more with their ego than with their sense of strategy. To this point, ego-driven leadership has served Bush well, but in his second term, as the issues become more subtle, more administrative and more open to continuous debate (e.g., Social Security and Supreme Court nominees), the president will have to get more strategic and ask such questions as, "What is the implication of the Bolton nomination for my other efforts?"

Bush isn't the only leader facing this dilemma today. Across the nation, scores of leaders are trying to install effective people to help run their organizations. And most of these leaders are likely heading down a path of unilateral power--which is very transitory and short-term--rather than a long-term power-enhancing path of seeking advice and consent. We can only hope that Bush and other leaders in his position will demonstrate the courage to reconsider their candidates and seek to optimize the long-term success of their institutions.
Backing off is sometimes a sign of leadership.

Samuel B. Bacharach is a professor in the department of organizational behavior at Cornell University. He is the author of "Get Them on Your Side."

GRAPHIC: PHOTO: President Bush continues to vigorously defended John Bolton (above), his controversial choice for UN ambassador. KRT photo by Chuck Kennedy.
PHOTO