Robert Gates: Smart Leader, Good Boss and … Noble Public Servant

 

By Joseph R. Cerami.

How to … Educate and Develop Leaders?

Different Paths, Different Styles, Different Times

 

In what turned out to be a relatively long goodbye for a high-level federal official, Robert Gates orchestrated a thoughtful farewell tour.  After letting President Obama know about his desire to retire as Secretary of Defense sometime in 2011, he made a number of significant speeches to core military groups — Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines — as well as the defense industry, leaving each with a blunt assessment his views on their current state of affairs, as well as some tasks to think about for the future of their service and the long-term security of the nation.  (Note: Leon Panetta replaced Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense on July 1, 2011).  A question then is: What does Robert Gates’ career and leadership style help us to understand about educating and developing the next generation of effective and ethical public servants?

For perspectives on Gates’ performance, observers have drawn stark contrasts with his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld.  The images are part of conventional wisdom: the steady, straight-talking Kansas Eagle Scout versus the strong-willed, mercurial, Chicago-bred Princeton wrestler (who, for the record, was also an Eagle Scout).   After early military tours (Gates in Air Force intelligence, Rumsfeld as a Navy pilot) their ascents to the top were marked by government service, but of very different sorts.

Perhaps too much is made of these comparisons [see the section below for additional details].  Importantly, the international and domestic political environments in which they operated were very different. One often repeated story is of the British prime minister who, when asked about what shaped foreign policy, is said to have remarked, “Events dear boy, events.” After all, immediately following 9/11, and serving in the George W. Bush Administration, it may be more likely than not that Gates, like Colin Powell (also a foreign policy “realist” and veteran of the Bush-41 Administration) would have participated in a similar manner in the pre-invasion planning (in sending in too few troops) and the post-invasion chaos (in being too slow to recognize the nature of the counterinsurgency).  In national security policymaking, the decision making context probably matters more than the decisonmakers personalities and their leadership styles and skills.  Nevertheless, in style and substance, the comparisons are inevitable, Bob Gates gets good-to-great reviews, and, in many quarters, Don Rumsfeld does not.  What accounts for these differences in the perceived failure and success of leadership at the highest levels of government?  Recent research on effective senior leadership provides important ideas in recognizing the elements for success.  To sum up a large literature, Robert Gates can be characterized as a “smart” leader, a “good” boss and a “noble” public servant.

The Smart Leader

Harvard University professor and former Harvard Kennedy School Dean, Joseph Nye has popularized the notion of smart power. That idea is to blend the soft power skills of emotional intelligence, communications and vision, with the hard power skills of building organizations and coalitions, along with  broad political skills (he calls this contextual intelligence) to understand evolving environments, capitalizing on trends, and adjusting you leadership style to followers needs.  At a 2003 Pentagon press briefing, when asked about whether he was considering using more “soft power” in the US approach in Iraq, Rumsfeld brusquely responded: “I don’t know what it means.”

Gates on the other hand followed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s adoption of smart power as part of her emphasis on 21st Century Statecraft.  The new 3 D’s of Diplomacy-Development-Defense interagency cooperation between Gates and Secretary of State’s Condoleezza Rice, and then between Gates and Hillary Clinton marked an abrupt turnaround.  Memoirs by Bush-43 officials are all consistent in pointing out the frosty relationship and open warfare between Rumsfeld and both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.  While far from perfect, the Gates-Clinton public partnership has contributed to the more positive relationship among the State Department, the Agency for International Development, and the Defense Department, as well as a more balanced consideration of blending diplomacy, economics and military force in American national security policy.  While the bureaucratic turf battles between the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom have continued, as usual, in the struggles for resources and missions, there has been a marked ascendance of the idea of smart power and this in large measure should be credited to Gates’ adaptive leadership style and coalition building skills – those that Nye would prescribe as essential to good leadership.

The Good Boss

Stanford Business School’s Bob Sutton achieved notoriety with his popularizing the idea of what he has come to term, in polite company, a no “boss-hole” rule–or how to lead without being or becoming a jerk.  Other leadership writers have referred to the idea of “toxic” leadership, or those who rely solely on commanding and pacesetting styles, as opposed to more nuanced visionary, coaching, democratic and affiliative styles.  No doubt, Rumsfeld would be characterized as commanding and pace-setting and, most likely, would see that as a compliment.  Emotional intelligence (EI) experts, like Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee tell us that the research is clear–over the long haul, toxic leaders are bad for your and their own health and are likely to contribute to organizational disasters.  EI and executive development coaches, like Sutton, will tell you to develop a golf bag filled with a variety of styles that are appropriate for different contexts.

The contrast of the perceived single-minded Rumsfeld and the multidimensional Gates again is interesting in terms of gauging the relative effectiveness of senior executives.  For instance, the late term Bush-43 Iraq surge, during Gates’ early tenure as Secretary of Defense, is seen as saving the US effort in Iraq.  In contrast, the Rumsfeld 2003 post-war “stabilization” period has been critically reviewed as a “fiasco.”

In terms of accountability, Gates is known to have fired or replaced more senior military officers and defense officials than did Rumsfeld.  Recent articles critical of Gates, by national security experts such as Lawrence Korb and Paul Pillar, point out several senior officials that Gate replaced.  Examples include the removal of the Middle East regional commander and Afghanistan field commander over troop-level policy disputes.  The Army’s senior civilian official and surgeon general were removed after the Washington Post wrote a series of articles about the inadequate support for wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.  The Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff were also removed after a series of incidents, including mistaken loading of nuclear warheads in 2007 on a from North Dakota to Louisiana.  Gates also raised concerns about the slow response of the Air Force to increasing the production and deployment of drones for the counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.  No doubt these actions, difficult in peacetime or wartime, will be open to debate in case studies of senior leader “accountability” for years to come in public affairs programs as well as business schools.  Nevertheless, as Gates said in quoting Theodore Roosevelt at a recent commencement speech: “The average … cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.”  To hold those high standards, in full knowledge of the exposure to personal attacks, Gates goes on to point out that leaders at times have to have the courage “to chart a new course,” “to do what is right,” and to “stand alone.”  Speaking truth to power is difficult, and so is speaking truth to organizations that are not performing up to their capabilities.

The need to speak bluntly about the strengths and weaknesses about leadership and organizations is one area where I think that Gates and Rumsfeld would agree.  Nevertheless, Donald Rumsfeld, despite his many tough decisions, such as restructuring the Cold War military, if not wholly “transforming” the Defense Department as he intended to do, and responding to the rapid changes of the post 911 world, will continue to be criticized by many inside and outside the DC beltway as a toxic leader and a bad boss.  For instance, Condoleezza recently broke her silence on the Rumsfeld criticism of her performance as Bush-43’s national security advisor, by characterizing Don Rumsfeld as just plain old “grumpy.”

Yet, despite both secretaries continual battling with the Pentagon bureaucracy and the Congress in calling for major reforms to enhance the Defense Department’s effectiveness, in comparison to Donald Rumsfeld, Bob Gates will be known as the good boss.  In essence, the sometimes overly dramatic press coverage of the wrestler Rumsfeld and the Eagle Scout Gates oversimplify the reality of life at the highest levels of government.

As Sutton writes: “Greatness comes only through dogged effort, doing many small things well, getting up after each hard knock, and helping your people press forward at every turn.  The best bosses don’t ride into town, save the day with a bold move or two, declare victory, and then rest on their laurels.”  Gates’ recent, glowing 60 Minutes profile, in pointing out his reputation as the “Soldiers’ Secretary,” will only add to the good boss commentary.  No doubt, future Defense Secretaries will be encouraged, probably repeatedly, to think: What would Bob Gates do?

The Noble Public Servant: Grounded, Pragmatic, and Realistic; and Romantic, Idealistic and Optimistic

Gates is also widely recognized for publically promoting the ideal of the nobility of public service.  George H.W. Bush is noted for saying that “public service is a noble calling.”  And good leadership, leadership that Nye points out must be both effective and ethical, requires “dogged effort” and also calls for leaders of character.  It was at the 41st President’s insistence that the university that was to house his presidential library had to commit to building a graduate school of public and international affairs.  Furthermore, the unique naming of the school was to be a school of “government and public service.”  As the prominent Interim Dean, Robert Gates was engaged directly in the Bush School’s emphasis on designing an academic program devoted to educating principled leaders for careers of public service – a mission and priority that all subsequent Bush School deans have endorsed.  These thoughts are reflected in Gates own words in his 2007 speech, upon returning to Texas A&M University, after once again being called by a president to serve his country: “In our heart of hearts, [public servants] are romantics, idealists and optimists.  We actually believe we can make a difference, make the lives of others better.”

People who report on those who have worked with Bob Gates will tell you that he is grounded, pragmatic, and realistic rather than romantic, idealistic and optimistic.  His essential realistic and pragmatic nature comes through repeatedly in his autobiography, From the Shadows, about his CIA career.  Even then he clearly recognized the political nature of national security policymaking in terms of a public servant’s working cooperatively with the executive and legislative branches of government while ultimately serving the nations interests.  In short, his reflections hold a reverence for American political institutions and its public servants at all levels of government.  In a sober assessment of the highs and lows of public service, Gates writes:

The White House is a poignant place….. And it seems to me that those who live and work there, if they are completely honest with themselves, with rare exception the most the most vivid memories are not of victory and joy but of crisis and defeat—and, for the fortunate few, of one or two occasions of historical importance.  This is why character counts for so much in a President.  In the White House, the elation of victory is fleeting and the burden of responsibility is enduring. (p. 574)

In sum, the smart leader knows how to use “common sense” to adapt to the reality of their environment, and at the same time to inspire followers, and future leaders, to press forward and to be prepared get back up after hard knocks—and continually face the burden of responsibility.  The record of Robert Gates as a smart leader, good boss, and public servant will be assessed and argued by a variety of historians and pundits has begun and will continue for years to come.  For future generations, I believe that in Robert Gates we have an example of one of the most influential leaders of this generation–a senior leader who will continue to stress that there are both burdensome responsibilities and true nobility in the meaningful work of public servants. Reportedly we can look forward to the publication in the near future of two books: one on his experience as Secretary of Defense; and a second on his lessons learned on change management in complex organizations like the Department of Defense and Texas A&M University.  It will be most interesting to read how he encourages educational institutions and agencies to lead and to develop leaders to manage change in these turbulent strategic and domestic environments.

__________________________________________________________________

Rumsfeld versus Gates: The Inevitable Comparison

Government careerist Robert Gates rose through the Central Intelligence Agency to become the Deputy National Security Advisor under President George H.W. Bush.  Gates was known for loyally serving as number 2 under the highly regarded Brent Scowcroft, who is widely viewed as a consummate national security professional and one of the best national security advisors in US history.  Gates then capped his time in the Bush-41 Administration as CIA Director, the first career intelligence analyst to ever achieve the spy agency’s top slot.

Donald Rumsfeld rose through Chicago politics (on the Republican side of course) with a surprising win, as a 30 year old in his first political campaign, for a north side Congressional seat.  Leaving Congress, he then rose through a series of administrative posts in the hardball Nixon Administration, including a short stint as the US Ambassador to NATO in Brussels, and then to Chief of Staff for President Ford (where he developed a strong relationship with the young Dick Cheney).  Ford named Rumsfeld as his secretary of defense, the youngest in US history.

After serving in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld returned to Chicago to become CEO of a pharmaceutical and other private sector firms, became known as a turnaround specialist, and became a rich man in the process.  Rumsfeld was called up by the Reagan Administration to serve as a Middle East envoy, where he made a now well-known outreach effort (along with a famous handshake photograph with Saddam) in a failed attempt to engage Saddam Hussein against the Iranians. In the 1990s, Rumsfeld worked on several defense and intelligence commissions and became a founding member the Project for a New American Century, the think tank that called for regime change in Iraq, and that is normally seen as a founding moment for the neoconservative movement.  Rumsfeld is of course noted for his combative, adversarial style – the wrestler metaphor is always highlighted in his profiles.

After leaving the CIA, Gates served on corporate boards, wrote an autobiography, and became the Interim Dean of the newly forming Bush (Bush-41) School of Government and Public Service, at Texas A&M University. After a short break, he competed to become the President A&M.  Gates’ participatory and consensus-building style at A&M is recalled with affection (a recent piece of advice for the Aggie president was to always ask: What would Bob Gates do?).   Just prior to being named the Secretary of Defense, Gates served on the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton, Iraq Study Group that suggested a way forward (and out of Iraq) in 2006.


 

An earlier version of this opinion-editorial was published by the Austin American Statesman at Statesman.com June 18, 2011, “Texas A&M expert, on why Robert Gates is so good.” [http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/texas-am-expert-on-why-robert-gates-is-so-good-1/nRbyg/]

 

Joseph Cerami is a Senior Lecturer in National Security and Director of the Public Service Leadership Program, at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University [http://bush.tamu.edu/pslp].

Leave a Reply

You must be Logged in to post comment.

What Next?

Recent Articles