Kathleen Reardon: Is It Even Worth Trying to Persuade A "Decider"?

It isn't easy. The most obdurate of this type are used to one-way coercion and manipulation. They understand power - short and simple.

They're the extreme of the "Commanding" type in the . There are four basic types and combinations of those: Commanding, Logical, Inspirational, and Supportive. I've used the LSI inventory with numerous companies and governmental agencies.

One of the companies, doing exceptionally well now, asked me to help alter their entire culture characterized at the time by Commanders with a secondary preference for Logical.

Inspirationals and Supportives were severely lacking. Ideas weren't shared. It was "My way or the highway," for sure.

Employees weren't motivated. The competition was eating them alive. Not anymore.

Leadership style can be stretched, even changed. Some leaders, these often in name only, are entrenched - they can't budge. Commanders are great if the job is to roll out an already agreed-upon strategy, or to get something done immediately.

But they're the wrong leader type for crafting creative alternatives (Inspirationals). And don't call on them to encourage and support the team. Logical leaders are suited to situations requiring thorough understanding of what has come before, the conditions now and the likely future.

They are avid data collectors not easily rushed to judgment. As such, they aggravate those who command and literally drive extreme "deciders" up a wall. They're too distant for Supportives, who care about how people feel doing a job, and they consider Inspirational leaders out of touch with reality.

So, what we have in the White House is a "leader" in the wrong place for these times (a generous evaluation, I know, but we're focusing on one problem here). This wouldn't be so bad if he were able to stretch his style or work with people unlike himself. But he doesn't do that.

Leaders like this hire a cushion of obsequious yes-men/women to surround a small trusted inner circle. "Deciders" rarely learn from mistakes, refusing to believe they make them. Key information is hoarded, disinformation freely disseminated.

So, can George W. Bush be persuaded to sign a with benchmarks for ending American involvement in the Iraq civil war? Not using conventional persuasion strategy.

He needs a power way out - to appear right. The current face-off is fine. It unsettles him.

But before he panics and crawls into a hole, it's up to the Democrats and beleaguered Republicans to find him a way to be right without sacrificing their own credibility. That's astute
"Impeach," some of you will shout. "Impeach or nothing.

What's wrong with you, Kathleen? I'm not reading your blogs anymore!" But this is strategy for today - for this Democratic .

Besides, there are over 150,000 troops and more to come whose lives depend on us comprehending how this man thinks of himself as a "leader." We've got to meet him where he lives.
He looks bad.

His ratings in the polls are in the pits. He won't come out a hero - no worries there. But throw him a rope - frayed, but adequate, and bring us closer to the soldiers coming home.

And if some senator or representative reads this and scratches his/her head in search of a specific strategy, let me know. The stakes are just too high not to try what has worked so many times before.
"My way or the highway" may not be a good strategy for a company or corporation.

But it is the ONLY way to run a war...

This is a concept that all but 14 Democrats simply do not understand...

By: michale on May 02, 2007 at 08:07am
Flag: [ ] But let's look at some of the Dems ideas and knowledge of the theater...

Dem Joe Biden who insisted that U.S. and Iraqi troops pacified the city of Tal Afar and then up and left.

The facts are that, not only have troops not left, but the number of troops have increased..
Dem John Murtha suggested that American troops be redeployed to Okinawa (where I met my lovely wife, incidentally.

. :D) and could easily be moved back into Iraq if warranted. Even though Okinawa is 0ver 5,000 miles from Iraq.

And, of course, there is Dem Reyes complete ignorance of whether Al Qaeda is predominantly Shia or Sunni..
Finally, we have Harry "The War Is Lost" Reid suggesting that US Forces remain in Iraq soley to train Iraqi forces and perform counter-terrorist activities.

An idea that has already been tried and discarded as ineffective.
So, THESE are the people that should be allowed to meddle in a war??

?
I don't think so..

By: michale on May 02, 2007 at 08:13am
Flag: [ ] "He looks bad. His ratings in the polls are in the pits. He won't come out a hero - no worries there.

But throw him a rope - frayed, but adequate, and bring us closer to the soldiers coming home."
I agree in theory..

and in a perfect world that compromise (becoming a diry word) would be worth it to just get those young men and women home (sadly leaving Iraqi's in a new world killing field)..but.

.just for a minute..

consider the Twilight Zone episode where the little boy(Timmy in Lassie no less)
turned people into jack in the boxes, pigs, etc., when they didn't humor him enough..

so the "adults" had to say "you're right..you're a good boy.

.everyone likes you"
By: halsey on May 02, 2007 at 08:20am
Flag: [ ] He's made his bones in Texas.
There ain't no mind game he hasn't used, or will use.

...

Narcissistic Professional Victim - you know...

.John Wayne with his arm inna sling and the shotgun cocked on his shoulder..

...

. By: mommadona on May 02, 2007 at 08:51am
Flag: [ ] This might be worth a try. I found the reports of the 'misinformation campaign' surrounding the supposed death of Abu Ayyub al-Masri quite interesting.

If indeed Sunni Iraqis are targeting al Qaeda members because of their killing of civilians it should be the perfect opening for the Democrats. I wish I had noted the source, but I read that a leader of one of the Sunni groups proposed negotiations with the US if we would provide a timeline for withdrawal of our troops. Others have speculated that if we withdraw, Iraqis will rid their country of al Qaeda.

It appears that this is true. I would like to hear Pelosi and Reid speaking about this. Maybe it could be parlayed into a form of 'victory' for the decider.

The bastard. Our troops were sent to Iraq in part so that Republicans would win the 2002 elections. They are staying there so Bush can save face.

Impeachment is what he deserves, after we get our troops home. By: Via on May 02, 2007 at 08:57am
Flag: [ ] Bush's problem-solving strategy is innovative. it goes like this: If reality does not suit policy, modify the reality, not the policy (for example, given the 'reality' of Congressional directives that limited his policy on torture, he simply appended a signing-statement that allowed him to keep the policy without recognizing the reality that he was in violation of the Constitution for ignoring its express legislation).

This is the same process that gave us an alternate CIA (Feith's group of skilled forgers) that gave him the results he wanted: mythical connections with al Qaeda and WMD's in Iraq.
In other words, this person simply ignores reality, and any concessions become exercises like the 'signing-statements.' Sadly reality in Iraq is less malleable than legislators' bills.

He does not accept reality in Iraq, so whatever he sees there is what he wants to see, just like the McCain-sponsored bill banning torture and enforcing compliance with the Geneva Conventions was not the bill its promulagator authored, but the one Bush wanted: a demonstration of Congressional irrelevance.
It is wisest not to negotiate with such an individual, but to impeach him. By: syllepsis on May 02, 2007 at 09:31am
Flag: [ ] Why should it be my priority to concern myself with the soldiers in Iraq?

I did not twist anyone's arm to join this VOLUNTEER army of ours. You vote for Bush, you enlist for Bush..

.you get what you get (and what you "get" usually involves a fvcking over of the highest order). The soldiers in Iraq are not my problem.

..the madman in the White House is.

By: STC on May 02, 2007 at 09:44am
Flag: [ ] Michale: your comments illustrate why members of the Iraq Study Group, after issuing their sensible recommendations for Iraq that were promptly ignored by the President, are now examining exactly what the wartime powers of the president actually are, as opposed to those the Constitution grants Congress (not just the power of the purse as commonly assumed). Because it's clear that whatever the Founders intended by the term 'Commander-in-Chief,' they did not intend the executive branch to wage war without the express and continuing consent of Congress. The Constitution is somewhat vague about the executive branch in general,hence the attempt to sort through this problem by Baker and company.

It is telling that Presidents like Eisenhower and Washington, with actual military command experience, were the least likely to abuse their priviledges as Commander-in-Chief. By: syllepsis on May 02, 2007 at 09:52am
Flag: [ ] I couldn't agree with you more. The manner in which this administration has managed the conflict has been beyond reproach.

What a great plan! It has accomplished great things and we all are thrilled by the outcome. Clearly, Bush's style of leadership was just what the country needed.

Thank heavens for constituents like yourself who continue to vote for the wonderful Republicans. They're just peachy. We stupid Democrats would be lost without you.

Plus, we would all go to hell for rejecting creationism! You've saved us! By: JeffDeVore on May 02, 2007 at 10:15am
Flag: [ ] In order to get the attention of a decider like Mr.

Bush, one has to use the Missouri farmer approach to persuading the mule - once in the head with a stick, to get his attention. The Senate and the House should offer to give in on the war funding, with no strings, if Mr. Bush will tell the truth once, on television, and if he makes Mr.

Cheney step down immediately. By: brooklyndiogenes on May 02, 2007 at 10:28am
Flag: [ ] If Congress wants to revoke authorization of the war, that is certainly within their purview..

I think it would be the wrong thing to do and send a terrible message of surrender to the terrorists, but it IS within the purview of Congress..
That being the case, the question is.

.. Why doesn't Congress do this?

?
Ms Pelosi is quoted as saying that Bush wants a "blank check" and Congress is not going to give it to him. The reality is, Congress already gave the President a blank check.

..
And, just like a real check, you can't take the funds away so the check won't be covered.

You either have to let the funds go thru or you put a "stop payment" on the check.
So, why doesn't Congress put a "stop payment" on the check??

By: michale on May 02, 2007 at 10:31am
Flag: [ ] Bush suffers from a severe superiority complex--he has a deep seated need to assert his superiority precisely because he knows deep down how lacking he really is. A superiority complex is a manifestation of an inferiority complex, and Bush has proven beyond ANY doubt that he's an inferior leader.
The spectacle on the deck of the USS Lincoln was a classic case of superiority complex on parade.

By: dictatortot on May 02, 2007 at 10:42am
Flag: [ ] Via writes: "Others have speculated that if we withdraw, Iraqis will rid their country of al Qaeda. It appears that this is true."
Care to cite a source for this bold assertion?

I haven't heard a single foreign policy/military expert make this case. You obviusly have. Please enlighten.

You write: "Our troops were sent to Iraq in part so that Republicans would win the 2002 elections."
Silly me, this whole time I've thought we went to war for oil, or was it to avenge Bush's father, or for Israel maybe? I know, it was because George Bush is a Christian fundamentalist who wanted to convert Muslim to Christianity.

..Wait, wait, wait.

..Lieberman supported the war so that he could divide the Democratic Party and win a third of the Republican vote, thus cruising to victory and emerging as one of the most consequential Senators in Congress.

The man is an evil genious By: Thrasybulus on May 02, 2007 at 10:57am
Flag: [ ] Resignation or impeachment. That's the only rope I would offer. By: bookish on May 02, 2007 at 11:28am
Flag: [ ] No, Kathleen, not this time.

Throwing the idiot a rope - of any kind - is a mistake.
Not because of his "leadership" style. There is no generosity involved in calling him any kind of leader.

It's simply wrong to call him a leader of any kind. It's not generous. It's just wrong.

He does not lead. He doesn't know how. Just like he doesn't read.

He doesn't have the mental capacity.
This is no time to negotiate with a thug, simply because he and his band of criminals have hijacked our White House.
Not this time.

The game is over. And it's high time all the foolishness stops.
And that includes deferring to him on any level.

Remember that he is not calling any of the shots. Karl is. Cheney is.

But the decider? He doesn't decide what color socks to put on in the morning.
Would you throw a rope to Karl?

To Cheney?
When the boardroom's been taken over by criminals, you don't advise the board to negotiate based on "leadership" styles. You get down to the ugly business of weeding out the bad guys.

Anything less is not only unacceptable. It's criminal. By: Raven on May 02, 2007 at 11:40am
Flag: [ ] virulent revolution.

...

millions on the doorstep until they are handcuffed,shackled and sent to the hague or continued bloodshed of the poor...

..insanity reigns americans wake up.

...

By: nomorebombs on May 02, 2007 at 12:05pm
Flag: [ ] "The reality is, Congress already gave the President a blank check...

"
"So, why doesn't Congress put a "stop payment" on the check??"
That much is dead-on accurate.

Look, the Neocons decided long ago that no matter what kind of political firestorm they face back home, that trillion dollars of untapped oil profits in Iraq and under the Caspian Sea is worth it. Why do you think Halliburton relocated in the Middle East - for two reasons - 1.escape US oversight, and 2.

be positioned to reap all the infrastructure-building contracts.
If the Neocons have to maintain a presence in Iraq with pure military force, against the will of the people of every country in the world, including the USA, their decision is simple - the potential payoff is worth it.
We have already seen that this is not about what America wants - that went by the wayside on Inauguration Day in January 2001.

This is about making money, consolidating control over oil, and ruling the planet by military dominance, suppression of dissent, and torture and execution of your enemies.
The correct approach to dealing with the Bush cabal is to treat it as a crime operation. There should be ongoing investigations into possible criminal activities, unending lawsuits that tie up their time and give them negative publicity on an ongoing basis, and continued prosecutions where possible.

By breaking up the Bush-family racketeering rings, recovering "lost" and top-secret intra-office communications, and otherwise building the case for criminal prosecution, we may just be able to prevent these idiots from bombing and polluting the planet to hell while driving America to bankruptcy (crooked-CEO style, where they bale with their golden parachutes as the country crashes and burns).
They're crooks. They should be behind the bars of the jails they so gleefully throw innocent families into now.

By: Snakeback on May 02, 2007 at 12:20pm
Flag: [ ] The problem with a "Decider" is that he races to conclusions and has no interest in the exposition, which he refers to as "nuance." When did Bush "decide" that an Iran-friendly Shiite leader would be the best thing for Iraq and the ME? He didn't.

He accepted the situation after the wind blew in that direction.
Every one of his decisions has turned into a catastrophic clusterfuck. He merely acts as if this is all part of a master plan that he clearly foresaw.

Horseshit. Impeach. By: CoyoteHowling on May 02, 2007 at 12:21pm
Flag: [ ] When all is said and done, ya'all have to know that Congress will send the POTUS exactly the kind of bill he wants.

You know it.. *I* know it.

. Congress knows it. The President knows it.

.