Leadership management and strategy - failure of Obama Presidency

HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency
  John Mariotti, Forbes Contributor

Image via Wikipedia

BREAKING NEWS—A Series of Excerpts from A Powerful New Book

Much has been written about Barack Obama’s presidency during his first three years. His supporters still adore him. His critics dislike him intensely. The real question is, why has Obama failed—in his own terms: “to turn this country around?” His campaign mantra of “HOPE & CHANGE” created tremendous expectations. The problem is, as our title states, “hope is not a strategy” and the “change” has been change for the worse, and not better.

Now there is a new book which chronicles thirty of Obama’s most notable failures and mistakes from a new perspective: as problems of leadership, ideology and inexperience–combined. Co-author Dave M. Lukas and I have combined the perspectives of two different generations of executive and entrepreneurial success into a series of short, easy-to-read chapters, each of which describes one or more of Obama’s failed outcomes, and goes on to offer valuable lessons for life, career and most of all, for current and future leaders in business and government.

Dave and I are both deeply concerned about America’s future as it struggles under Obama’s staggering budget deficits and imperial power plays, leading to sluggish growth, record unemployment and a general lack of respect for the USA that is growing greater every month he is in office.

When Barack Obama exploded onto the national political stage—literally—during the 2004 Democratic convention, he used his oratorical skills to elevate his thin resume and undistinguished career into national prominence. He stated his conviction that, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America.” Unfortunately, after a masterful campaign, in which he echoed this line in various forms, he did not behave or govern this way. Under his presidency, the divide between the conservative and liberal elements of the US government has grown wider, not narrower. Obama has been a divider, not a uniter.

Why this happened can lead to complex, and contentious arguments. That it has happened is indisputable. In HOPE IS NOT A STRATEGY: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency we break down some of the many the problems, mistakes, failures and “misstatements” that Americans encountered during President Obama’s first term.

In this series, I will post excerpts from several chapters of the book, to provide readers a “taste” of what the book contains. It has been called “The most important book of 2102,” and described as, “An insightful guide to leadership and management based on examples of stunning failures and what not to do.” Another assessment of it said it this way: “Every American voter needs to read this book. It will help them see Obama’s many mistakes—prove that style and oratory do not trump substance…”

The book will be available in late March on www.amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle versions, and other on-line booksellers. To sign up for more details of availability, go to www.hopeisnotastrategybook.com and click on the Contact tab.
—————-
John Mariotti is an internationally known executive and an award-winning author. His newest book, co-authored with D. M. Lukas, Hope is NOT a Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency will be available in March 2012 at www.amazon.com. Mariotti’s 2008 book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. His critically acclaimed 2010 novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, merges an exciting fictional thriller with the reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. Mariotti does keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies. He can be reached at www.mariotti.net.

 Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Western Imperial powers overreach, yet again!

From Egypt to Russia, the Western urge to meddle in other countries continues to be troublesome.

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

THE so-called Arab Spring continues to spring surprises, most of all on its Western backers. With double standards in international politics, just about anything goes.

US, Israeli and European cheerleaders of Arab “regime change” through street politics have realised by now that the naive notion of ousting dictators does not travel in a straight line. Among other things, the new regimes that emerge have tended to be more independent and less Western-friendly.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist Freedom and Justice Party has taken the pivotal role in post-Mubarak political life, including the upper house of Parliament. In Tunisia much the same has been happening with the Islamist Ennahda party.

Shifting the goalposts: When allegations of voter fraud bore no fruit, Moscow’s street protesters switched to accusing Putin of using rough tactics on them as police made arrests. — AFP

 

An element of that plays in the opposition Syrian National Council’s multiple splits. The more cautious Western officials are currently hesitant to provide “hard power” to the rebels battling Damascus, since rebel ranks include al-Qaeda.

Right-wing US lawmakers like John McCain are chiding President Obama for not arming Syrian rebels. It is telling that McCain’s best claim to fame is as a veteran of the Vietnam War, that classic icon of a failed and futile US armed intervention.

Even so, the temptation for a hyperpower to intervene can be irresistible, so Washington covertly dispatches regime-change NGO activists as catalysts instead of the Marines. It is what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “smart power.”

However, the double standards when compared to similar situations elsewhere then become glaring. After Western-allied Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to suppress protesters there one year ago, Western-compliant Qatar has called for supplying troops and weapons to Syrian rebels fighting President Assad.

To an incumbent government in Iran that is also being targeted by Western and Israeli policymakers, all of that is enough to invoke Islamism in defiant response. Although President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains the convenient bogeyman for the West, his political rivals at home are even more conservative and Islamist as shown in parliamentary elections early this month.

Nonetheless, neither religion nor showy forms of piety is the issue: it is a country’s unwillingness to comply with Western requests and demands that is. The stakes are raised when such a country is oil-rich and occasionally snubs Western concerns as well.

Currently the most conspicuous example of this is Russia, or rather president-elect Vladimir Putin’s Russia. This is a country that happens to channel the West’s worst “fears” today: being big, rich in oil and gas, independent-minded, “uncooperative” with the West over Libya, Syria and Iran, and even opposed to Nato’s eastwards expansion right up to Moscow’s doorstep.

Thus US and some European leaders are as keen for a “Russian spring” as they have been about a political spring-cleaning in Arab and Muslim countries they do not yet control. How the West would respond to anti-Putin street protests was therefore a foregone conclusion.

Russia’s recent presidential election provided the moment for a convergence of anti-Putin posturing. Russian street protesters, then Western media, and then Western governments formed a chorus to denounce Putin’s victory and the electoral process that led to it.

This happened both from a distance, such as the State Department or the Oval Office, as well as from within Russia by a visiting team of OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) election observers. It also occurred from the editorial offices of supposedly liberal Western media.

But what is the substance of complaints, apart from the usual geopolitical power plays?

If indeed the election had been a sham as the protesters and critics have been claiming, the evidence for it would have been presented, analysed, commented on and displayed. The Putin electoral bandwagon would and should have been stigmatised, although the appropriateness of any foreign political action would still be in question.

Russian protesters at least would have been justified in their street demonstrations, and assured of the justice of their cause. Instead, the protesters were already out in the streets denouncing Putin months before the election, which gives some indication about the content of their complaint.

Now weeks later, opposition claims of vote fraud favouring Putin is still without substance. Opinion polls before the election indicated a two-thirds majority support for Putin, and the results have since shown 64%.

Even Putin’s opponents had agreed that he had no problem securing enough votes to win the election. Until now his opponents and critics have not explained why he needed to cheat to win, and furthermore they failed to show that he had cheated.

No evidence 

Interestingly, the OSCE observers indirectly rebuffed opposition claims of multiple voting by Putin supporters, and instead reported on the negative perceptions that attended the voting. The Europeans had no evidence of vote fraud and declared that there were no significant violations, but they still hankered after attaching a negative spin to the election and its result.

They cited no improper motives by Putin’s United Russia party, yet they were not above tainting the election result through implication or by default. Perhaps that was an attempt at smart power too.

If anyone had any “actionable” evidence of fraud it would have been the OSCE observers, yet they served up nothing. Their position would in effect have been a workable endorsement of the election’s credibility.

United Russia had failed to secure a two-thirds majority, yet the CIA-linked Voice of America reported that Putin had won “by a landslide.” Meanwhile, the opposition claim of voter fraud persisted all-round in the face of the absence of any evidence to substantiate it.

That much might have been expected of Putin’s opponents at home and even Western governments averse to his independent ways. But for Western media to chime along without questioning the basis of their presumptions, and even failing to report dispassionately, shows a decline in professional ethics.

At the heart of such reporting and editing is a tendency to approach opposition claims with less scepticism than government ones, although both sides are equally interested parties in an electoral contest. It is an approach typical of the Western media in the Third World.

As for Moscow’s street protesters, they have lately taken to shifting the goalposts. After their allegations of vote fraud bore no fruit, they switched to accusing Putin of using rough tactics on them as police made arrests.

At the same time, protesters say they want neither violence nor a revolution, just more transparency and the rule of law. They have no alternative candidate they prefer to Putin, just an alternative mode of the government’s handling of the election for a better sense of confidence in the process.

Essentially, the protesters did not endorse any particular candidate but were instead just being anti-Putin. The very fact that they have been doing so openly without being packed off to a gulag in Siberia for life shows the distance Russia has travelled since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For now, Putin’s main rival candidates – a communist, a crypto-fascist and a controversial oligarch – seem to leave little to be desired between them. If the unspoken objective of Russian voters is getting a president who can act competently and confidently to safeguard Russia’s interests, the election might already have been purposeful enough.

The protesters and their Western backers might then just need a little time to reconcile themselves to it. That could be their best option in smart politics yet.

Golf, a good walking game!

Make it a good walk  

Golf is an enjoyable sport as long as there is an element of exercise involved, like walking, otherwise it’s just a parlour game.

Bukit Jambul Country Club in Penang has issues with members now not allowed to walk the course.

The phrase “Golf is a good walk spoilt” is often attributed to the famous American scribe Mark Twain, who was said to have used it to describe his frustration with the game.

The truth is that Twain, whose real name is Samuel Langhorne Clemens, never uttered those words but it seems a US magazine in the 1930s attributed the phrase to him because “it sounded like something Twain would say”.

Regardless of who is the original author, we golf mortals, who find the simple instruction of keeping the ball in a straight direction an impossible task, find so much truth in that phrase.

Even a demi-god like Tiger Woods is struggling to keep his game together and often refers to the present state of his game as military golf because he keeps hitting the ball left and then right and then left and then right again – like soldiers marching.

However, all of us continue to chase after the white dimpled ball because we want to get better at it and it is probably the only form of exercise we get after hours in the office. Thus, it’s a good walk spoilt – a good exercise pursuit interjected by bad golf.

This brings me to the recent controversy surrounding the Bukit Jambul Country Club in Penang where the management company running it has decided to ban golfers from walking.

The actual ruling is not a ban on walking but rather that all golfers taking to the course must rent a buggy.

The clash between the golfers and the club operators – Taiyo Resorts – has descended into all sorts of battles from name calling at press conferences to disciplinary hearing against members who opposed the buggy only ruling which took affect on Feb 1.

It all started when some 100 members voiced their displeasure over the compulsory buggy-use rule at the golf club.

According to the club’s liaison committee chairman, Stanley Park, from that day walking hours were restricted to after 5pm (only on Monday and Tuesday). Many other clubs around the country also restrict golfing to non-peak hours but none have enforced it as strictly as BJCC.

“However, the club has already made known to the members of the Liaison Committee during one of our regular meetings, that BJCC shall be a full buggy course as soon as the renovations of the fairways gets completed,” Park said in an interview.

More than 100 disgruntled golfers protested at the club on Feb 2, saying the ruling was not suitable due to the way the course was built as it was designed for golfers to walk and not intended to be a buggy course.

They also complained about the increase in the buggy rental rates from RM22 to RM37 for the first nine holes.

Taiyo Resorts’ managing director Datuk Eiro Sakamoto argued that majority of the club’s 2,800 members did not object to the new ruling and it was just a few golfers who were making noise.

It cannot be denied that the “buggy only” ruling is a way for the company to increase their ancillary income – after all it had promised the state government, which owns the course an increase in profit.

However, most visitors to Bukit Jambul would rent a buggy as it is quite a commando course with hilly and tight fairways that are quite sapping for those unused to such conditions.

But for golfers, seeking a good workout, Bukit Jambul is the perfect course to keep fit and to test whether you can avoid playing Tiger’s military golf.

Making money from running a golf club is not an easy thing especially when you have a course built into the top of a hill. Maintenance, I expect, would be high and the green fees collection cannot be much.

The subscription is just over RM90 and with 2,800 members, this works out to be RM252,000 per month. The extra revenue from F&B plus ancillary income like golf buggy rental becomes important.

However, the management of BJCC must take cognisance of the importance of walking when playing golf.

It improves your game because it keeps the rhythm going when one walks:

This is how the game is supposed to be played and this way the game finishes faster as the golfer walks straight to the ball.

It improves the fellowship among the flight of golfers because all four of them can walk and talk at the same time.

I hope that the matter can be resolved amicably as golf is a gentleman’s game with proper rules.

So till next month, walk the course and truly enjoy the view.

Keep Walking.. Keep Walking...Keep Walking

Keep Walking.....

Because...
 
The Organs of your body have their sensory touches at the bottom of your foot.

If you massage these points you will find relief from aches and pains as you can see the heart is on the left foot.

Typically they are shown as points and arrows to show which organ it connects to.

It is indeed correct since the nerves connected to these organs terminate here.

This is covered in great details in Acu-pressure studies.
 
God created our body so well that he thought of even this.

He made us walk so that we will always be pressing these pressure points and thus keeping these organs activated at all times.

So, keep walking....... LIVE LONGER !!!!! 

 Golfer or not, you must see this clip...

 http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=aw-nt0eTb2w

It's all in the balance... (He plays off 3!!) And he walks the course!!!!!

Is there something unreal with our fliers at the club?

Hear that members are filing court action for some declaration of rights to play golf the way it was meant to be played?

Perhaps some of you LC members can show this clip to the presiding judge. Thanks

Related posts:
BJCC Golf Club management Fiasco: challenges ...
BJCC management fiasco: 'Outsourcing not the fair way ...