Walled In
“We will build great moon planes. Amazing and beautiful and great moon planes. Trust me.” — John F. Kennedy, June 22, 1961 “Great Moon Plane Speech” Baylor University
If you don’t remember John F. Kennedy’s “Great Moon” quote from the height of the Cold War, it’s because I just made it up. If you are wondering why, keep reading.
The current partial government shutdown is the result of, what appears on the surface, a disagreement in policy surrounding border protection. Trump called for a wall during the election, he promised it, and now he aims to see it through. The Democrats have said all along that a wall is too expensive and isn’t even the best solution, necessarily, at least not for the entire 2000-mile border.
No attribution required
This essay does not attempt to assess what is the proper policy; it’s rather to explore the decision making process our President has chosen. In short, Trump has bungled this. Trump has bungled this issue by allowing himself to get sucked into a classic executive decision-making trap. That is, focusing on the “how”, rather than the “why” or “what”. One hallmark of successful, complex organizations — that is, organizations with any sort of organizational hierarchy — is that the various levels of leaders, from first line managers, through middle level directors, to C-level executives, “stay in their lane.” Actually, they “stay in their strata.” Effective executives set goals and objectives and policies and leave it to the lower level technicians to solve the problem, or present options, to meet the goals and objectives with the resources available. Which is why JFK actually said, “I believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.”
Trump could have played this differently, and to his advantage. Trump could have set aside the campaign message of “a wall” and once in office, pivoted to an executive-styled declaration of purpose or vision. In doing so, most people, perhaps even some Democrats, would have seen Trump’s call for “the wall” as typical electioneering posturing, no stranger to either party, and that a new articulation of vision and values was in line with how things roll in politics.
Trump could have said something like, “America will do everything at her disposal to protect the integrity of our land from the threat or terror, crime, and drugs and do it before those threats cross our borders. Border security is sacred. It shall not be compromised. I am asking Congress to work with Homeland Security and other stakeholders to secure the funding required to accomplish this mandate by 2020.” In fact, he sort of did say something like this, though not so specific, in his inaugural address. The word “wall” is nowhere in his January 20, 2017 speech at all. Had he stayed on his inaugural message of “protect[ing] our borders from the ravages of other countries” and steered clear of specifics, he’d now be in a better negotiating position.
You can argue with his stridency or his choice of words. Or you can disagree that border security is even a problem. That’s not the point here. The point is that we can use Trump’s leadership as a cautionary tale of how to not set yourself up. What Trump said during his inauguration address, and what I offered earlier, are values-based statements which is where executives ought to stay. Values-based statements are silent as to the “how” and stick with the “what.” Then it is up to Congress to argue over the details and funding. They can bring in the experts to testify, figure out strategies and tactics, dates, and so on. If Trump insists on being part of defining the actual solution, he can task a “blue ribbon” panel to study the problem then offer two or three approaches that he, The President, gets final decision authority. And even the deadline of 2020 I offer as an example, may not be wise to include in such pronouncements as it adds an unnecessary obstacle that shifts the focus to the “when.” And as I’ve coached leaders in the past, if you deliver something late, people will be mad, but will eventually move on. But if you deliver shit on time, they’ll never forget (see Obamacare website). So, don’t create arbitrary deadlines because you think it will make you look decisive.
Meanwhile, as of this writing, Trump is boxed into a corner with no negotiating latitude and the Democrats know it. Trump is desperate for a face-saving move and his “National Emergency” gambit, though maybe he is backing away, is a clear desperation move from a bargaining position of weakness rather than strength. It’s possible the Democrats will blink, though Speaker Pelosi seems unflinching.
It may not be too late for Trump, though he squandered a golden opportunity to shift the narrative away from technology specifics and back to broader values during his televised speech. One possible way out could be to pile on, a classic Washington move. If Democrats are smart they could capture border security as their issue by not offering $5.7 billion for a wall, but by offering more. What about $15 billion or $20 billion for a comprehensive strategy, including a wall where Homeland Security says it is the best technology (but not exclusively), and to also address port security, displaced families, unescorted minors, DACA, aid to unstable nations so fewer people flee as refugees, etc.
Trump could argue he got more than he asked for because the Democrats caved, thanks to his tactics, while Democrats could do the same. Both sides will believe what they want and believe it is the other side that is intransigent. And then 800,000 feds plus some number of contractors get to go back to work and pay their mortgages and we can get on with the messy business of our peculiar democracy.
Meanwhile, especially you C-Suite executives out there, if we pay attention, this is an amazing opportunity for learning.
