Jack Welch (former CEO of General Electric) on Obama...

[mshan]

Obama Win Is Management Lesson to All: Welch

CNBC.com | November 05, 2008 | 07:50 AM EST


Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election should serve as a management lesson, as he opened up new "markets" during his campaign, former General Electric CEO and management guru Jack Welch told CNBC Wednesday.

"If you look at management skills as being execution, as one of the real issues, this guy demonstrated without question the best execution I've ever seen in a political campaign," Welch said.

"He came from a basement startup to build an organization that was flawless--demonstrated in the culmination in Chicago last night with one of the most impressive rallies, or celebrations, one could ever see. This is a manager. This is a real manager."

Obama's win caps a string of victories dating back to primary elections nearly a year ago in which he defeated Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party nomination.

"He did something that's a management lesson for everyone," Welch told "Squawk Box." "Most managers do the same thing over and over again, they do what I call the milk run. They call on the same clients, they use the same speeches."

"This guy opened up new markets, while Hilary Clinton was doing the milk run. He went out and circled around her, he did market development like you've never seen and did a management job that every manager in the world should look at," Welch explained.

"No one has quite ever seen a campaign so flawlessly executed," he said.

The challenge is now for Obama not to give in to demands from the extreme left, Welch said.

"He's going to have pressures from the left that are so strong." he said. "The question is, can he hold the line."


http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/27552782

Yes, that quote is from the 2008 cycle, but compare and contrast with what insiders of the Romney campaign are saying about their panderer in chief:

"This article is based on accounts from Romney aides, advisers and friends, most of whom refused to speak on the record because they were recounting private discussions and offering direct criticism of the candidate and his staff, Stevens in particular."

...

"To pin recent stumbles on Stevens would be to overlook Romney’s role in all this. As the man atop the enterprise — in effect, the CEO of a $1 billion start-up — Romney ultimately bears responsibility for the decisions he personally oversaw, such as the muffling of running mate Paul Ryan’s strict budget message and his own convention performance."

...

But whatever Stevens’s shortcomings, presidential candidates get the campaigns they want. And Romney, who in an interview with POLITICO last month said his leadership style very much centers on having a variety of smart people offering advice and him being the decider, has taken a very active role running his own campaign.

In a way, that’s the problem. Romney associates are baffled that such a successful corporate leader has created a team with so few lines of authority or accountability."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html?hp=t1

Unless things change drastically between now and November, it seems like only real suspense for election night is whether North Carolina turns blue or not (http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/13/obamas-ceiling-romneys-floor/)

Romney's "upside" would seem to be picking off Virginia, but losing Florida. But third party candidate Virgil Goode might take away 1 - 2% of vote in Virginia from Romney, tilting a toss up to Obama. Romney's choice of Ryan (voucherize Medicare) may have turned Florida from lean Republican to toss-up, but his inept RNC, followed up by DNC with coherent and positive messaging, I am guessing has turned Florida into lean / slight lean Obama (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2266842&highlight=538).

And yes, Romney's shoot first and aim later comments recently were his Palin McLame '08 Lehman moment (chapter 2, start at 42:40 moment: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/#b)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Is there anything in this wall of text that is something that you have not regurgitated?

 

[manimal]

Great leaders pick good talent. Jack Welch was am amazing finder of talent and motivator.

What this speaks to is the talent surrounding both these candidates.

 

[Lanyap]

The challenge is now for Obama not to give in to demands from the extreme left, Welch said.

"He's going to have pressures from the left that are so strong." he said. "The question is, can he hold the line."

And,
I guess Obama is a real manager who is anti-business.

Obama Administration Is 'Anti-Business': Jack Welch
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321858/Obama_Administration_Is_Anti_Business_Jack_Welch

 

[mshan]

You have to separate Welch's corporate right political views, from his assessment of Obama as a maestro CEO directing his 2008 campaign apparatus.

Plus worst criticism a pragmatic, non-idealogical person can have about Obama's management of the economy is that he is H. W. Bush, not the FDR the Hope and Change idealists from 2008 thought they were voting for.

If Obama's ultimate legacy ends up being like that of H. W. Bush (cleaning up the mess Reagan left, and doing the heavy lifting of spending cuts and tax increases (which sound like they will come right after Obama is reelected, with some sort of Obama Boeher Grand Bargain as starting point, and setting the stage for the economic prosperity that Clinton got to take credit for, well, that ain't such a bad legacy in the grand scheme of things...

Romney is playing checkers at the level of a child who learned the rules a few minutes ago; Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Ben Bernanke are playing multi-dimensional chess at the level of Grand Master (Putin and the Chinese must have a hard time containing their laughter at the thought of Mitt the Twit as leader of the free world).

 

[PokerGuy]

Romney is playing checkers at the level of a child who learned the rules a few minutes ago; Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Ben Bernanke are playing multi-dimensional chess at the level of Grand Master

Perhaps if they'd waste less time playing checkers and actually doing something useful they wouldn't run the economy into the ground like they are. :biggrin:

Funny how when Welch was saying the bummer was anti-business his opinion didn't mean anything, and now it's supposed to mean something? Worthless tripe is worthless, as usual.

You have to hand it to obummer though, he's a great politician. If only he was also a good leader and president we could actually be heading in the right direction...... but since he's not, we're not.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I personally like his lack of knee-jerk reactions to a crisys 2.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Perhaps if they'd waste less time playing checkers and actually doing something useful they wouldn't run the economy into the ground like they are. :biggrin:

Funny how when Welch was saying the bummer was anti-business his opinion didn't mean anything, and now it's supposed to mean something? Worthless tripe is worthless, as usual.

You have to hand it to obummer though, he's a great politician. If only he was also a good leader and president we could actually be heading in the right direction...... but since he's not, we're not.

Correct. With Obama it's all perception and no substance. He spends most of his time campaigning and precious little time actually leading. Obama doesn't realize the CEOs of most companies put in huge amounts of hours per week actually RUNNING the company. Contrary to popular belief it's not all golf games and 3 martini lunches. The CEO of the company I worked for in the 80s worked 18/7 and expected his execs to be on call whenever he needed them. Obama strikes me as a strict 9-5 kinda guy.

He's a consummate politician, not a leader.

 

[rudder]

The CEO of GE heaping praise on Obama? Gee I wonder why.

 

[PokerGuy]

He's a consummate politician, not a leader.

The two environments where you can succeed based without actually accomplishing anything, academia and government... of course the bummer would be there.

 

[PokerGuy]

The CEO of GE heaping praise on Obama? Gee I wonder why.

Maybe he's trying to get a billion or so thrown his way to start up some new 'green energy' sham.

 

[zsdersw]

Wait a minute... I think those of you who have such a visceral hatred of Obama have to get your stories straight.

Which is it:

Is he an empty-chair politician who does more campaigning than leading?

or

Is he a socialist radical left-winger who has done a lot to ruin the country?

He can't really be both. I realize that there is no amount of praise too small and no amount of criticism too large for him in your eyes, but come on... would you rather he do a lot of what you don't like or very little?

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, Obama's greatest fault is thinking he can find common ground with the GOP, when the GOP is unwilling to do anything but obstruct what ever Obama is trying to get this country out of the hole WE have all dug.

Look at all the time it took to pass Obama care, but Obama care is now so watered down in compromise its little better that the failed health care system we had. In terms of financial reform, GWB&co had dismantled reforms put in place by Teddy Roosevelt, and Obama just can't get the GOP to put even put those reforms back in place.

Jack Welsh had it wrong in 2008, the danger was not in Obama pandering to the left, as the real danger was in a Obama that pandered too hard to the radical right.

And if Obama is reelected in 2012, I hope he grows a backbone stiffer than a chocalate eclair. And says to the country this is what we need, and if the GOP wants to block it, the GOP can take the blame for it. Which is what Bill Clinton did to Newt Gingrich, Newt refused to back down, the US government temporarily went into default and had to suspend payments. And come next election, Newt and the GOP got clobbered, and Newt has not held a government position ever since.

When someone is a community organanizer as Obama was, they have to pander to greater power, But no decent US Presidend ever got anywhere by being too pandering to a minority. Compromise is needed, but Obama's mistake has been in being too compromising without getting anything in return.

 

[Fern]

I think EVERYONE admitted back in '08 that the Obama campaign was very good (personally I credit David Axlerod). But after 3.5 yrs of actually serving in office his '08 campaign performance is irrelevant, he now has an actual record.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

Wait a minute... I think those of you who have such a visceral hatred of Obama have to get your stories straight.

Which is it:

Is he an empty-chair politician who does more campaigning than leading?

or

Is he a socialist radical left-winger who has done a lot to ruin the country?

He can't really be both. I realize that there is no amount of praise too small and no amount of criticism too large for him in your eyes, but come on... would you rather he do a lot of what you don't like or very little?

Actually, yes, it can be both. He's an empty chair politician who does more campaigning and fund raising than leading. However, he's a good public speaker and there are a lot of weak minded people who follow him and believe him, so he has the power to change things. Unfortunately he uses it to mess things up instead of accomplishing something.

 

[zsdersw]

Actually, yes, it can be both. He's an empty chair politician who does more campaigning and fund raising than leading. However, he's a good public speaker and there are a lot of weak minded people who follow him and believe him, so he has the power to change things. Unfortunately he uses it to mess things up instead of accomplishing something.

People who follow him? You mean citizens who support him? They can't really do much at the government level... Obama is the one who can sign bills and enact policies. If he's an empty-chair politician who does more campaigning than leading, how can he also be someone who enacts a lot of disastrous policies and signs a lot of bad laws?

Leading, for the POTUS, is about seeking the policies and laws you want and working to get Congress to make them. If Obama hasn't done much leading, and all of what he has signed into law has been bad, why would you find his lack of leadership a bad thing? Seems to me that a president who only seeks laws that are ultimately detrimental would be a president we would want to be one who doesn't do much leading.

 

[halik]

LOL 2008 quote; Obama will certainly do great in the 2008 election.

Jack Welsh's subsequent quips are far more relevant:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321858/Obama_Administration_Is_Anti_Business_Jack_Welch

 

[PokerGuy]

People who follow him? You mean citizens who support him? They can't really do much at the government level...

Lest you forget, the people who believe his drivel also vote, which means he can get idiots in congress to do things because they know the fools in the general public will want them to because the dear leader told them so.

If he's an empty-chair politician who does more campaigning than leading, how can he also be someone who enacts a lot of disastrous policies and signs a lot of bad laws?

The two are not at all mutually exclusive. He gets very little done, but the things that he does get done are disastrous (appointing idiots to the court, pushing obamacare etc).

If Obama hasn't done much leading, and all of what he has signed into law has been bad, why would you find his lack of leadership a bad thing?

I consider leadership to be more than simply getting certain things done, it has to be getting the right things done and moving the country in the right direction. A general marching in front of his troops as they retreat in defeat is technically leading, but is in fact going in the wrong direction.

Seems to me that a president who only seeks laws that are ultimately detrimental would be a president we would want to be one who doesn't do much leading.

I think our definitions of "leading" are different. I prefer no action to the wrong action, but sometimes you can have a combination of both, where the president is not a leader where he should be, but then is a leader in pushing the wrong things. The worst of both worlds.

 

[zsdersw]

Lest you forget, the people who believe his drivel also vote, which means he can get idiots in congress to do things because they know the fools in the general public will want them to because the dear leader told them so.

I think the stifling of Obama by Congress proves how little you really have to worry about that.

I consider leadership to be more than simply getting certain things done, it has to be getting the right things done and moving the country in the right direction. A general marching in front of his troops as they retreat in defeat is technically leading, but is in fact going in the wrong direction.

Well that's just it. The things he has done are viewed by him as the right things to move the country in the right direction.

 

[lothar]

LOL 2008 quote; Obama will certainly do great in the 2008 election.

Jack Welsh's subsequent quips are far more relevant:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321858/Obama_Administration_Is_Anti_Business_Jack_Welch

This.

 

[mshan]

As I said further up the thread, you need to separate Jack Welch's corporate right political views, from his assessment of Obama's skill at managing his campaign apparatus during the 2008 cycle.

The incoherence of the Romney campaign speaks volumes about the wanna be panderer in chief.

Or, as Michelle Obama said, the presidency doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are...

(DNC messaging subtly attacked at core vulnerability of Romney, that he really doesn't have any core values and will say what he thinks any given group wants to here. With Romney, everything is tactical; there is no strategery, so to speak).

Welch is on CNBC Squawk Box tomorrow starting at 7 AM, so you can update video clips of how he has changed his opinion on Obama about an hour after the video is broadcast live.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

The incoherence of the Romney campaign speaks volumes about the wanna be panderer in chief.

Or, as Michelle Obama said, the presidency doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are...

Seems to me you are misreading her quote to say "the campaign doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are..."

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

As I said further up the thread, you need to separate Jack Welch's corporate right political views, from his assessment of Obama's skill at managing his campaign apparatus during the 2008 cycle.

The incoherence of the Romney campaign speaks volumes about the wanna be panderer in chief.

Or, as Michelle Obama said, the presidency doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are...

(DNC messaging subtly attacked at core vulnerability of Romney, that he really doesn't have any core values and will say what he thinks any given group wants to here. With Romney, everything is tactical; there is no strategery, so to speak).

Welch is on CNBC Squawk Box tomorrow starting at 7 AM, so you can update video clips of how he has changed his opinion on Obama about an hour after the video is broadcast live.

There is a core value in the Romney campaign & Repub ideology in general- to enable the rich to get richer, regardless of what that means to anybody else. They embrace the same ideology that Repubs have pimped for a very long time, and that's what it is. They'll say anything to get the power to accomplish that, depending on a well indoctrinated base & the fact that many voters use the head in their shorts rather than the head on their shoulders when making decisions.

 

[mshan]

Welch's feeble opening defense of Romney this morning was tepid (he was basically pushing trickle down, magical fairy dust, voodoo economics as the cure for all of our ills and tacitly admitted that Romney never intends to pay for the new round of tax cuts by saying he would veto middle class tax increases because, of course, deficits don't matter... http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000116225&play=1

Whether his secondary argument for deregulation is valid, at least for me, depends upon whether he is pushing complete deregulation of free markets (government of, for, and by the corporation, as Jim Cramer used to crow during Bush years), or choosing the proper and correct ratio of providing a level playing field for all, providing reason protections for Main Street American, and also incentivizing optimal allocation of capital, vs. rigged game where lobbyists for connected entities just carve out rules and regulations to maximize their profits at all costs and everything else just doesn't matter. What is correct and proper is obviously a judgement call (there is no absolute answer by just running the numbers), so core beliefs and values are important. And Frontline's "Money, Power, & Wall Street" segment of Obama decision on whether or not to restructure Citigroup shows that he is thoughtful and willing to listen to all sides of the argument before formulating his final decision. One could argue whether Obama is inherently as bold (FDR, not H. W. Bush, though we also have to remember that Obama did not come from a rich aristocratic family with lots of pre-existing political connections, and that his father or cousin had been president previous to me), but I will take Obama's thoughtful prudence over Romney's reckless and impulsive tendency to want to double down his bets (on things that are already not working) whenever he gets into trouble during political campaign.

Mr. Welch looked much better, much more in his element, during this later video clip:

"one great statistic is most of these businesses are operating at about 70% or 80% of the 2007 peak in revenue. their profitability is back to 2007/2008 levels. because they cut the heck out of jobs. yes. 30% fewer people working in these jobs. and automation ( http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/09/14/1159261/is-that-robot-going-to-steal-your-job/ taken out tons of jobs ). the old belly to belly salesman is replaced with an ipad and other information. we don't have to have all these people chasing inventories. the stories of productivity are incredible in these plants. you're not going to get some of those old jobs back. unless you get big demand. because you've got to put more people in the street for that. but in general, the stories are the same. oh, we're recovering. yeah, we're back to 75% of where we were in '07. but our profits are back to where they were. but we're 30% down in people. it's a common theme. business after business after business."


http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000117011&play=1 (specific comments are around 2:40 mark, but I recommend starting at 1:40 point for greater context)

Sure, Obama did not build that business so to speak, but the steady and prudent leadership he provided right at the beginning of his term provided the backdrop that allowed corporate America to recover and flourish so quickly. Also remember comment somewhere about how Amazon Web Services allows starts to start with a few people, some capital, and a laptop, vs. having to hire say 10 - 20 people (forgot what real number mentioned was) to achieve same end point.

Using his "leadership" and judgement in terms of how he has run his campaign, it is truly terrifying to think how he would have thrown Western Civilization back into the Stone Age if he had beaten McCain and then Obama in 2008.

Problem for Obama is that the counterfactual won't resonate with the populace at large, especially when we have pulled back safely from the abyss and the magnitude of crisis at time just fades in our memories...

 

[lothar]

Jack Welch(former CEO of General Electric) on Obama indeed...

Jack Welch ‏@jack_welch
Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers