There is a difference between making a deal and making a decision. We need leaders who have mastered the art of the decision, not the art of the deal.
At best, a deal benefits everyone involved in a fair and balanced way, with all parties following through with their obligations – the classic win-win scenario.
At worst, a deal unfairly benefits the party that has the most power, and is agreed to by the weaker party only because they have no other alternative. More often than not, the more powerful party ultimately reneges on their obligations, making the deal even more one-sided – the classic win-lose scenario.
We have a president who boasts about making win-lose deals, and who has shown through his business history of bankruptcies, unpaid bills, tax avoidance schemes, and broken promises that he is always ready to renege on his obligations. He’s even written self-congratulatory books about the success of his business methods.
However, the presidency is not the boardroom. The presidency requires decisions, not deals. This president’s art of the win-lose deal has lead to winners and losers in most of the actions that this administration has taken. This president’s brazen, intimidating, and insulting style has provided entertaining cover for his actions, most of which have benefited the very rich and the large corporations at the expense of the poor, the middle class, and small businesses, not to mention threatening the environmental health of the country and destabilizing important international relationships that have served to provide political and economic stability for seventy-five years.
We need to move beyond the art of the deal. It has not served us well. Instead, let’s begin to practice the art of the decision, more specifically, the art of the good decision.
The art of the good decision begins with justifying its need. There must be a clear understanding of the anticipated outcome of the decision, what improvement over the status quo is intended to be achieved.
The art of the good decision must be based on unbiased facts and data, without the influence of partisanship, preconceptions, or constraints. Having unbiased facts and data is required to accurately understand the status quo, to develop of a plan of action intended to achieve the anticipated outcome, and to have a basis by which the success of the decision can be measured.
The art of the good decision requires that it be timely so that the conditions to be addressed by the decision do not change before the plan of action can be put into effect. A delay in making a decision makes it much more likely that the anticipated outcome will not be achieved.
Finally, the art of the good decision also requires a recognition that facts and conditions are always changing and evolving. Adjustments to the plan of action may be required during implementation. What is certain is that all good decisions must always be revisited to ensure continued relevancy and to address unintended consequences.
We have a president who makes self-serving decisions that are more like win-lose deals. His anticipated outcomes are intended to benefit his power base, manipulate his supporters, and support his personal agenda. His decisions are not based upon having the correct facts and data or on having a clear understanding of the status quo, and more often than not are full of personal bias, ego, and retribution. Even his best decisions rarely have a well thought-out plan of action, often involve significant delay, and as a result are unlikely to achieve the anticipated outcome.
To be fair, the president is not alone in his inability to make good decisions. This failure transcends party affiliation, and seems to be seen as a virtue by many in whom we have placed our faith and trust.
The art of the decision is appreciated and mastered by few; the art of the good decision is mastered by fewer still.