Tag Archives: Trump

Trump’s Actions Show that Change is Messy

 

The election of 2016 was billed as a “change election.” It is clear now that a large portion of the electorate had reached such a level of frustration and feeling of disconnect with the status quo that they were willing to vote for change – any change. Even though they came from different sides of the political spectrum, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were the only presidential candidates to recognize and tap into this powerful undercurrent of the desire for change.

Unfortunately for Sanders, his message of change was blunted by the Democratic National Committee that had effectively rigged the party nomination in favor of an establishment status quo candidate. On the other hand, Trump benefited from the fact that, while the Republican National Committee favored establishment candidates, a gaggle of 15 other candidates diffused the establishment support. This allowed disaffected Republican voters to coalesce around Trump’s message of change. Even though Trump never received a majority of Republican primary votes, the concentration of voters driven by the desire for change pushed him to the nomination.

The same phenomenon (plus a little help from Russia) also impacted the general election. Even though Trump and his message of change failed to garner a majority of the popular vote, he was able to cobble together enough disaffected voters to flip a number of traditionally establishment Democratic states in order to win the majority of Electoral College votes (the votes that really count) and win the presidency. Much to the chagrin of the bulwarks of the government establishment status quo – the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties and the national media.

Learning the Lessons of Change Management

As president, Trump is now challenged to live up to his promise to be a change agent. He is quickly learning the lesson that any person in a position of leadership who seeks to bring about change must understand: Change is not something that is simply announced, it has to be created.

Change has two natural enemies: Those who resist change and those are frustrated by the status quo, but fear what change will bring. Those who are comfortable with the way things are and view change as a threat to be resisted. For them, change is the answer to a question they never asked. Ironically, those who most vociferously call for real change can become fearful of change when the answer to what change means is not clearly answered. As a result, change, no matter how beneficial it may ultimately be, is always difficult to implement and accept. And change becomes downright messy and chaotic when what is to replace the status quo is muddled or nonexistent.

Real change is about being positive, not negative …

For a leader to be a successful change agent, it is critical for them to shift the focus off the desire for change itself and focus on the benefits that will be derived from change. In other words, for followers to accept change, the debate should not center on what they are losing, but on what they can gain from the change. If that does not happen, change will be stillborn.

A good example of this change dynamic at work is the current debate over Obamacare. From its inception, the majority of Americans have had a negative opinion of the program. The Republicans seized on the unpopularity of Obamacare to promise that if given the power to act, they would “repeal and replace” it. Likewise, during the campaign Trump railed against Obamacare and promised that his first act as president (right after tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement) would be to repeal and replace Obamacare.

But now with the Republicans in full control of the government, the effort to deliver on the promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare has become, at best, messy and chaotic. Even the Republicans are fighting among themselves as to how to implement this change. There is no clear, coordinated plan being offered by Trump or the Republicans; despite the fact that they have had years to develop one.

As a result of this befuddling Republican approach to change, even those who disapprove of Obamacare have begun to have second thoughts. For the first time in years, public opinion polls have shifted and more people approve of Obamacare, than oppose it.  

Why is it that even those who were demanding change (and voted for it) are now uneasy with change? The problem is – and this is a great lesson for any leader to learn – that by simply announcing the intent to repeal Obamacare and not coupling it with a clear plan for going forward, Trump and the Republican leaders have allowed people to focus on what they will be losing (as bad as it may be) rather than on what they will gain by a new approach to healthcare. 

What Trump and the Republican leaders are missing in their effort to implement the promised change (not only for Obamacare, but other issues as well) is the understanding that while people may be frustrated with the status quo and claim to want change, they are even more fearful of an uncertain future. As a result, there is nothing but confusion, frustration and fear of what the change will bring.

Again, the key to effective change management is for the leader to focus on where they are going, rather than where they have been. No matter how much people may protest against the status quo, unless they clearly understand the benefits of the proposed change, they will resist the change.

For example, Trump and the Republican leaders could have said something like, “We are going to repeal Obama care and replace it with an expanded Medicare system that would be available and cover all Americans.” By offering an alternative to the status quo, rather than simply attacking it, leaders can marshal support needed to make change positive.

Living with change …

There is a good lesson here for anyone who seeks to implement change in an organization. No matter how passionate people may be about seeking change and especially for those who do not recognize the need for change, the best approach for gaining acceptance of change is to debate the future, not the past. It is the duty of the leader to paint that future and explain the benefits to those who will live it. Only that way will real change come about.

Trump Tries to Triumph in the Tumult of a Vuja De World

from “If You’re Not Making History, You Are History” by Bob MacDonald

 

Soon, Trump will formally inherit the titles of the office of the president such as “leader of the free world,” “the most powerful man in the world,” and “commander in chief.” But there is one title he will bring to the office with him. It is a title no occupant of the White House has been entitled to for over a century; and that is the moniker of “disrupter in chief.” Not since Teddy Roosevelt was elevated to the office of president by the assassination of William McKinley in 1901 has an individual assumed the presidency more determined to disrupt the status quo as is Trump.

It is apparent that no longer will there be a feeling of “Déjà vu” as Trump settles into the routine of being president. Instead, Trump will bring to reality the concept of “Vuja de” coined by the late comedian and insightful urban philosopher George Carlin.

We are all familiar with the term Déjà vu which literally means “already seen” or the general vernacular of “been there, done that.” On the other hand, as Carlin explained it, Vuja de is the uneasy feeling people have when the status quo is being disrupted and they are in a place they have never been before; not knowing how the rules will change. That uncertainly is the uneasy feeling now being experienced by the political establishment, the mainstream media and a majority of American voters as the era of Trump begins.

Trump is not the first disrupter. Just the first disrupter to lead government

Disrupters in business – those who change the way the game is played – are, when successful, legendary and revered as visionaries. Some of these historical business disrupters would include Henry Ford, Bill Gates at Microsoft, Steve Jobs at Apple, Phil Knight at Nike, Fred Smith of FedEx and Richard Branson of Virgin Group. All of these individuals thrived in the world of Vuja de by being comfortable doing what others had not already seen to do.   

While naturally resistant and comfortable with the status quo, the business world has been susceptible to a Vuja de approach because of the power vested in the leader. But government has never been exposed to a true Vuja de type leader, because by its very structure – the constitution – our government is based on the concept of defused power that is intended to assure the consistent continuity of the status quo. Power is passed from one president to another, while the Republican and Democratic Parties rotate supremacy within the confines of government, the slow flow of the status quo remains. The players may change, but the way the game is played does not change; the rules remain constant. At least they have up to this point.

The intriguing aspect of a Trump presidency is that he will be the first person to bring a Vuja de business leadership style to the highest level of the government. It is an axiom that successful business leaders seek to do what has not been done to create the future, while the establishment that populates the government seek the repetition of what has been done to preserve the past. For many (in both business and government) the feeling of Vuja de is intimidating, while for others it is exhilarating. It will be beyond interesting to see how this conflict between Déjà vu and Vuja de will play out in government over the next four years.

It could well be that this conflict of diametrically opposed approaches to governing will create even more polarization and dysfunction in government. On the other hand, it may open our eyes to the idea that government, just as in business, can function more effectively if it is not shackled to the practice of doing the same thing, the same way it has always been done, because that’s the way it has always been.

A peek at a Vuja de world

We are already privy to a glimpse at how this clash of attitudes may play out in a Trump presidency. Trump has been roundly criticized in the media for being publicly skeptical of the “intelligence community” reporting that the Russian government sanctioned – indeed sponsored – cyber hacking efforts to influence the outcome of the presidential election. It is true that there are other factors at work here, but Vuja de leaders naturally challenge the conclusions of those in the status quo; especially when their conclusions are offered with no dissent. Even if the conclusions of the intelligence community are accurate, that does not mean the process of reaching them can’t be challenged. Trump has not denied the conclusions of the intelligence community, but he has challenged them to prove their point. I have no doubt that the intelligence leaders who presented their case to Trump last week had done much more work and were better prepared to present their case, than if they had not been challenged by Trump.

And history proves the point. In early 1961, John Kennedy, a new president in the continuum of the status quo, accepted, without challenge, the unanimous conclusion of the intelligence community that Castro was a weak leader and the people would rise up against him if America supported an invasion of Cuba. If Kennedy had been more of a Vuja de leader who was willing to challenge the establishment, the Bay of Pigs fiasco may never have happened.     

There may be valid reasons to oppose or even fear a Trump presidency, but unfortunately many of those in the establishment of government and the media are dreading a Trump presidency simply because his style of leadership is so foreign to their traditional thinking. Trump’s style will force them to step out of their comfort zone and this engenders a queasy feeling of uncertainty and loss of power that comes with the surmised safety of the status quo.

The Vuja de style of leadership may fail miserably when applied to managing a government, but on the other hand, it just may be a new way to effectively manage government and make it work. One thing we know for sure is that Trump will not be a Déjà vu president.

Trump Should Focus on Replacing Obamacare

blogpic

 

A cornerstone of Trump’s campaign for president was the promise he would repeal and replace Obamacare. And rightly so, because Obamacare is an unmitigated failure. The promise of Obamacare was to provide “patient protection and affordable healthcare” for some 40 million uninsured Americans. The plan has failed on both points.

The saga of Obamacare is a great example of wanting to do the right thing, but going about it the wrong way. Obamacare as we know it came about because President Obama capitulated to the merchants of the devil – the health insurance industry – in order to strike a deal on healthcare reform. The great myth surrounding Obamacare is that it is some type of government provided healthcare coverage like Medicare, but it isn’t. Under Obamacare the government has nothing to do with the type of coverage offered, the quality of the services provided or the cost consumers pay for healthcare; that is all left up to the whims of private health insurance companies.

Obamacare is nothing more than a (clunky, complicated) website that is intended to match-up those who need healthcare coverage with private, for-profit insurance companies looking to sell their policies. The only requirement for insurance companies to market their policies on the “exchange” is that pre-existing conditions are covered and children can be included under the policy until age 25. Beyond that, insurance companies are free to determine the structure of the policies, the provider networks the insured must use, deductibles and the co-pays – the amount the insured must pay out of pocket; and those can run as high as 40 percent of medical charges. Most important, the insurance companies are free to charge any premium they desire and increase those premiums at will. In short, Obamacare has become nothing more than a profitable boondoggle for insurance companies. As usual, the ones left holding the short end of the stick are individuals who most need and can least afford healthcare coverage.

In addition, employers who are mandated to provide employees with healthcare coverage are free to use all sorts of machinations to avoid this responsibility. (For example, hiring employees as part-timers and making sure they work less than 40 hours a week.) This forces the employees to use the Obamacare website and be pillaged by the insurance companies.

Be careful what you wish for …

With a Republican soon to be in the White House, the Republicans in Congress who believe healthcare is a privilege based on the ability to pay, rather than a right of citizenship, are stupid-drunk giddy over the prospect of killing Obamacare, but they need to be careful what they wish for. There may be one problem that could turn their dream into a nightmare. While that Republican soon to be in the White House has savaged Obamacare, he has consistently supported the rights of every American to have healthcare coverage. Over the years Trump has repeatedly praised the concept of universal healthcare.

On 60 Minutes Trump said, “Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say ‘No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.’” He continued, “I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not.”

On the Larry King Show Trump bluntly proclaimed, “If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over … I believe in universal healthcare.”

In his book The America We Deserve Trump wrote, “We must have universal healthcare … I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses …”

So the Republicans in Congress may be in for a bit of a surprise blowback from their Republican president when it gets down to the nitty-gritty of repealing Obamacare, without offering a reasonable alternative for millions of Americans who lack access to healthcare or don’t have the ability to pay the exorbitant premiums charged by private insurance companies.

What is the alternative that Trump could propose?

If Trump is sincere in his belief that all Americans should have affordable access to basic healthcare services, he could achieve that goal by simply expanding the scope of two healthcare plans already in existence – Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare provides effective and efficient medical care for millions of Americans age 65 and over. Medicaid – a combination of state programs funded by the federal government – provides medical care to millions of low income individuals.

The point is that these two programs have processes and procedures in place and in point of fact are paying for the healthcare provided by hospitals, care givers and doctors for millions of Americans. Patients are free to select any of the 95 percent of hospitals and doctors who accept Medicare payments to provide their care. This is not the government deciding or providing the healthcare, but simply being the “single payer” of the benefits provided by private hospitals and doctors.

So the question is: Why not repeal Obamacare and replace it with the two national healthcare programs already in existence and functioning effectively? There is no need to create an entirely new bureaucracy. The simplest and most direct way to offer basic healthcare to all Americans at affordable costs is to expand and enroll everyone – at all ages – into Medicare or Medicaid.

Of course, this can’t be done with a flip of a switch, but an organized national phase-in of Medicare over time could make it happen. For example, in the first year those 60 to 65 would be eligible for Medicare, then the next phase would include those 50 to 55, and so on until everyone is covered. This would allow for Obamacare to be repealed and phased out at the same pace Medicare is expanded.

This approach could be a win-win for everyone. Trump and the Republicans could fulfill their campaign pledge to repeal Obamacare; Trump could remain consistent in his call for universal healthcare and, most important, all Americans could finally join the millions of citizens of every other industrialized nation in the world for whom basic healthcare is a right of citizenship, not just a privilege for the wealthy.