Dan Erwin

Harris, Warren and Biden Are Going to Get Eaten Alive by Trump

Most Democrats assume that Harris or Biden--and perhaps Warren--can beat Trump in a debate. The fact of the matter is that in a debate there's a high potential that all three of these lawyers will get eaten alive by Trump. The successful prosecution of both Barr and Biden by Harris, many also think, is illustrative of what she can do with Trump. That's profoundly flawed thinking. The problem with all four of them (Barr included) is that they work on the basis of lawyerly assumptions. What do I mean by that? I'll explain--and also reveal why Harris, who did so well with Biden and Barr, cannot work her magic with Trump.

It's all about assumptions. Lawyers inevitably come to the party with rational assumptions and act like a judge is watching. The fundamental assumption that all three of them bring is that by asking questions you can expose the weaknesses of the opposition. In other words, the opposition  has to answer a question in some form that can then be analyzed or rejected.

But the big problem these lawyers face in dealing with Trump is...

A Tour de Force On, Of All Things, National Policy

After reading Ganesh Sitaraman's brilliant and highly creative tome on The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution:Why economic inequality threatens our republic, I couldn't wait for his and Anne Alstott's little book, The Public Option: How to expand freedom, increase opportunity and promote equality. Usually, I'd think a book like this might be boring--but that notion is miles away from the truth. It's a real page-turner.

Before I get into the book, let me emphasize that it's immensely readable. Illustrations, examples, caveats, questions, theory, solutions: the whole package. Fact of the matter, I ran a quick test of its literacy level, finding that the book was written at the level of high school seniors and college freshman. I suspect that was exactly what they intended. And although the back page reviews are effusive, as far as I'm concerned they could be still more effusive.

Figuring Out the 2020 Candidates by Counting Words

Back in 2004 Pete Buttigieg, his Harvard Colleague, Ganesh Sitaraman, along with Peter Emerson wrote an intriguing, fun article suggesting that by counting the number of words in the party platform, you could figure out who would win the presidential election. The smaller the page count, the more potential for winning the election.

They surfaced a great deal of examples to support their proposal. They found that since 1960 the average page count of the Democrats' platforms in losing years was 82 pages, but that the average of winning years was 46. The longest platforms at 128 and 124 pages came during the disastrous years of 1980 and 1984. 

They also found that another indicator was what they called the candidate-to-opponent ratio. In the Democrats long 1984 platform they were unable to spell out their platform without mentioning/comparing to the Republicans. That year Ronald Reagan was mentioned 213 times, while Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate wasn't mentioned once. Reagan won by a complete rout. 

These guys also studied the rhetorical use of words, specifically the use of "crisis." The Republicans used the term "crisis" a dozen times in their 1980 platform, including in the first sentence. Of course, that was the year that Reagan won in a landslide.

I've thought about this article and my own background of rhetoric in the past months by comparing Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren. I've listened to Buttigieg throughout his campaign and compared his positioning to that of Elizabeth Warren. Buttigieg was in no hurry whatsoever to create policy. In fact, he pushed back on media's demands for a lotta policy statements, wanting to keep his approach simple, while Warren made "I've a policy for that" her mantra. All along my rhetoric background suggested that what Pete's doing is very smart and that Elizabeth Warren's inundating us with policy will bring her down, even though right now she's getting all the attention...

5 Steps to Get Buy-In from Your Colleagues (and Your Boss)

Many people do not seem to recognize that getting buy-in for their ideas is not only key to organizational success--but also to personal and career success. This is an issue that does not seem to go away or get old. Furthermore, the inter-disciplinary set-up of businesses today just makes the competency both more difficult and more valuable.

Surprisingly, there is a definite process for how actionable recommendations evolve and gain acceptance. When I say “process” I’m revealing that much of communication is built upon protocols. To a degree, communication process can be compared to software development process—to coding.  

But don’t misunderstand. Though the analogy to coding is insightful, the behavioral consequences of communication are far more unpredictable and the inferences can be strikingly different and even more political. Still, basic processes exist for many communication competencies. Once internalized these communication processes (I prefer “rhetorical processes”) can be applied and adapted to differing contexts and interactions. In short, there is specific, learnable process for how actionable recommendations can have a better chance of gaining support.

How Effective Is Your Democratic Candidate?

In March 2014, I wrote a blog post on Satya Nadella, at that time the new Microsoft CEO. Based on his conversational rhetoric I proposed that he would be able to look forward to a highly successful tenure. My conclusion proved accurate. After listening to a number of 2020 candidates I realized that the same process could be quite applicable to an assessment of their future. One Democratic candidate fits the bill perfectly. Although I'm not willing to share my conclusions about the candidates thus far, I thought that the blog might be useful for other political junkies like me. Thus, I have reprinted the blog, making it immediately available on my site. Your assessment will need some awareness of the typical Democratic policy perspectives from the past twenty years, but given that assumtion, this blog should be of value to the astute listener.

Can you guess who these candidates are?

Preface to This Blog: Most perspectives on organizational and leadership change propose that communication occurs in the context of change. Here, I invert that perspective and propose, instead, that communication—in the form of conversations—is the context in which change occurs. In other words, communication/conversation is the tool to successfully execute change, not a result or by-product of change. The promise of leadership conversation is that there’s a new and better way to lead an organization now that command-and-control is at best futile, and at worst, and probably more commonly, destructive. Satya Nadella is indicative of the best. Kudos to Microsoft for their choice. The blog below elaborates and extrapolates.

“If they engage with conversation in the right way,” Harvard’s Groysberg and Slind write, “they have the potential to unleash organizational energy of a sort that no leader could ever command.” That’s why the conversation between Adam Bryant and Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, grabbed my attention. And though an interview is not the kind of dialog that is inevitably revealing, the uniqueness of Nadella’s response can only be indicative of many highly astute leadership conversations. 

Powerful rhetoric
Social science research finds that organizational mindsets form the boundaries of possible change within an organization. Proposed changes that do not fit within existing paradigms—including corporate leadership--simply do not ...

“If they engage with conversation in the right way,” Harvard’s Groysberg and Slind write, “they have the potential to unleash organizational energy of a sort that no leader could ever command.” That’s why the conversation between Adam Bryant and Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, grabbed my attention. And though an interview is not the kind of dialog that is inevitably revealing, the uniqueness of Nadella’s response can only be indicative of many highly astute leadership conversations. 

Powerful rhetoric
Social science research finds that organizational mindsets form the boundaries of possible change within an organization. Proposed changes that do not fit within existing paradigms—including corporate leadership--simply do not ...

In March 2014, I wrote a blog post on Satya Nadella, at that time the new Microsoft CEO. Based on his conversational rhetoric I proposed that he would be able to look forward to a highly successful tenure. My conclusion proved accurate. After listening to a number of 2020 candidates I realized that the same process could be quite applicable to an assessment of their future. One Democratic candidate fits the bill perfectly. Although I'm not willing to share my conclusions about the candidates thus far, I thought that the blog might be useful for other political junkies like me. Thus, I have reprinted the blog, making it immediately available on my site. Your assessment will need some awareness of the typical Democratic policy perspectives from the past twenty years, but given that assumtion, this blog should be of value to the astute listener.

“If they engage with conversation in the right way,” Harvard’s Groysberg and Slind write, “they have the potential to unleash organizational energy of a sort that no leader could ever command.” That’s why the conversation between Adam Bryant and Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, grabbed my attention. And though an interview is not the kind of dialog that is inevitably revealing, the uniqueness of Nadella’s response can only be indicative of many highly astute leadership conversations. 

Powerful rhetoric
Social science research finds that organizational mindsets form the boundaries of possible change within an organization. Proposed changes that do not fit within existing paradigms—including corporate leadership--simply do not ...

Finally. A Highly Astute and Long Overdue Critique of Facebook

Chris Hughes, one of the original founders of Facebook, has an unusually astute analysis and critique of Facebook in today's NYT opinion page. He argues that Mark Zuckerberg is a good guy, but that his company is a threat to our economy and democracy. Facebook, he argues, needs to be broken up. It's an article every techie, techie wannabe and politician needs to imbibe thoroughly.

In an unusual response to the extensive analysis, the editors of the Times also provide 5 takeaways from Hughes' essay:

--Mark Zuckerberg is really powerful. Like cartoonishly, Bond-villain powerful.

--Facebook's founders had no idea of the power of what they were building.

--Facebook's concentration of power and influence is part of a trend that extends beyond Silicon Valley.

--There are no alternatives to Facebook. That's the problem.

--We have the tools to regulate Facebook but not the will. Yet.

A major problem we face is that the old, regular good-guy politicos are utterly clueless. So we really do need Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He's the only one running for the presidency who understands the shit, has the willpower, and can actually execute.

NYT: Chris Hughes: It's time to break up Facebook.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html

NYT: Chris Hughes's call to break up Facebook: 5 Takeaways. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/chris-hughes-facebook.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

 

Three Steps for Reducing Your Decision Errors

Far more often than I ever expected, I’m still in the decision-making business as a semi-retired professional. So, I was initially intrigued and then amused by an article in the MIT Sloan Review on a structured approach to strategic decisions. What caught my attention were the authors: Kahneman, Lovallo and Sibony—some really smart guys in the decision-making process. With that kind of backing and world renown authors, the Sloan Review can get your attention to the process as though it’s something really new--a way to avoid biased decisioning.

The process is not new! But it is masterful.

I first borrowed the model from Russo and Schoemaker’s Decision Traps (1989), (later upgraded to Winning Decisions (2002)). There are two differences between Kahneman’s recommendations and those of Russo and Schoemaker. The MIT article focuses on organizational decision making, while R & S focus on individual decision-making. The second difference is that the MIT article lays out more than a dozen pieces of research, dating from as recently as 2017, while R&S worked from far less research...

Wrong Measure of Success

This morning I'm reposting a highly relevant, insightful article from Fast Company. As a management consultant for years, I've had to remind my clients of the necessity to build relationship currency. In her article Vivian Giang emphasizes a success principle often ignored.

In your career, you earn currency with those in power. Unfortunately, most people focus on building up their performance while forgetting to build their relationship currency.

Most people are focused on the wrong measure of success...

Best, Most Hilarious, Politico Introduction of Mayor Pete Buttegieg

I couldn't stop laughing when Buttigieg introduced himself this way: "This is the only chance you'll ever get to vote for a Maltese-American, left-handed, Episcopalian, gay, war veteran, mayor millennial." Now that's what I call authenticity.

Here's how Andrew Sullivan compared Buttigieg to Trump:

Trump would be the oldest president in history at 74; Buttigieg would be the youngest at 39. Trump landed in politics via his money and celebrity after years in the limelight; Buttigieg is the mayor of a midsize midwestern town, unknown until a few weeks ago. Trump is a pathological, malevolent narcissist from New York, breaking all sorts of norms. Buttigieg is a modest, reasonable pragmatist, and a near parody of normality. Trump thrives on a retro heterosexual persona; Buttigieg appears to be a rather conservative, married homosexual. Trump is a coward and draft dodger; Buttigieg served his country. Trump does not read; Buttigieg does. Trump’s genius is demonic demagoguery. Buttigieg’s gig is careful reasoning. Trump is a pagan; Buttigieg is a Christian. Trump vandalizes government; Buttigieg nurtures it.

To put it simply, Mayor Pete seems almost designed to expose everything that makes the country tired of Trump.

Doing a Better Job with People Analytics

There are some jobs that you just can’t trust algorithms to do. Yet more and more organizations are trusting algorithms to make their people decisions. Yet, writing in the Sloan Review, Wharton’s Cade Massey makes what to me is an obvious point. Objective distance is overrated. Although many in artificial intelligence think you can reason better when you’re uncorrupted by the subjective, that doesn’t follow in many people decisions.

The facts are that when you’re dealing with hiring, developing managing and trying to retain people, the better approach is about relationships and trust. That doesn’t mean you need to ignore those algorithms, but that you need to work them in tandem to people. For some analysts, “networking is not only uncomfortable, but dubious.” This mindset can be a real handicap. Being a loner eliminates the safety net of both information and goodwill. And like it or not, sometimes when you’re let go, it’s not about your skills, but about the good will and relationships you’ve failed to create.

I’ve used Richard Burt’s seminal studies on networking for years—and found that it’s applicability in organizations is profound. Decades of research reveal that people gain professional benefits –including both formal and informal power—from the quality and size of their social network—their relationships. I put “quality” first in that sentence, because some confuse size alone with the power of their networking. Quality is usually more important than size. But don’t confuse your algorithmic brain with the total of reality. Algorithms ain’t everything. And being a loner will inevitably get you the short end of the stick, and sometimes serious trouble..