The news is alive with reports about President-Elect Obama’s cabinet selections. Some people are praising him for picking seasoned veterans of Washington politics who can get things done on Capital Hill. Some are criticizing him for the same reason, that he ran on a platform of change, but has selected the “old guard” as his advisors. Some are criticizing him for picking a very partisan cabinet. Who should he be selecting?
One of the keys to succeeding as a leader is to surround yourself with people that think differently than you do. The first rule of decision making is to first have disagreement, then come to agreement. You need to have an active and lively debate about an issue, hearing all facets of it in order to arrive at the best decision, as opposed to the most obvious and convenient decision.
One of my biggest criticisms of the Bush administration is that he forgot the lessons he learned at Harvard - to have an active debate on an issue, to hear all views and positions on the issue before making a decision. President Bush ended up surrounding himself with like-minded advisors who told him what he wanted to hear. As a result the Bush White House often selected the most obvious option because they couldn’t see the other options that may have been available.
If President-Elect Obama is wise he will make sure he has members of his cabinet that have opposing points of view, who will occasionally disagree with him and cause him to consider other options. President-Elect Obama must demand his cabinet and staff disagree with him, to force a debate. It is only through this “organized disagreement” that the best options are discovered and decided upon.