What Has Happened To Great Leaders And What The Next Ones Are Facing

Left to right and top to bottom above: Colin Powell , Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and General Norman Schwarzkopf

The next great world leaders will be faced with the following:

• Facing geopolitical and economic realities, stopping war interventions and investing in relationships within and without our country by offering mutual collaboration.

• Ceasing dwelling on threat and build long term infrastructure, education and international development.  The threats will melt away. 

• Investing for the long term based on a strategy dealing with challenges in education, communication and society value transitions.

• Developing government working modes that know how to strike a balance between long and short term actions. We must let them know what we think regularly by communicating with them. 

• Knowing that most cultures and societies in upheaval today are watching our national models and choosing whether or not to support them, ignore them or attack them. 

Let us hope they are up to the challenge

The world is crying for great leaders. They are out there, but I believe they are hesitant to step forward. It is worth examining why and what has happened to some recent United States great leaders.

This author watched for over 35 years in aerospace as the massive machine of government ground up men of integrity who had a true sense of leadership, purpose and service.

Unknown to the average American is the swinging door of military personnel who enter the defense industrial complex and then move on into government civil positions, lobbying activities or enterprises tapping their former service background for gain and greed.  Statesmanship and integrity have a difficult time surviving in that environment. The potential for waste, fraud and abuse is tremendous:

Star Creep and the Revolving Door

Oversight organizations such as POGO have highlighted many cases of abuse where former military personnel have been involved. The POGO data base at the link below has public record details regarding these type of occurrences:

Contractor Misconduct Data Base

Colin Powell had difficulties in a government role because real integrity fares poorly in the big machine and he made the mistake of trusting the NSA and the CIA, as well as Lockheed Martin, SAIC and CSC on Iraq war policy.

Dwight David Eisenhower was one of the last, great, ex-military presidents who led well in government. He warned us at the ink below about the big machine gathering power as he left office:

Eisenhower Farewell Address

Harry Truman could not have made the type of hard decisions and "Buck Stops Here" operations in this day in age. The machine would have crippled him.

Jimmy Carter had integrity but did not fare well because the huge gears of government were grinding away by then.

General Schwarzkopf demonstrated true leadership potential in the first Gulf War but very prudently moved away from the government he served as a military officer when he retired. He was a Vietnam vet who knew the machine too well..

I worked in Aerospace through 7 Administrations and all I saw was the machine getting bigger, grinding up leadership principles, young soldiers, creating new enemies and spewing foreign interventions and profits for large corporations.

Our hope for the future is that the massive machine of government will be re-sized small enough so a true leader with statesman qualities will be inclined to take the helm and steer it in a direction away from political stagnation while fostering a resumption of the premiere place the US has had in history. 

We found the STRATFOR Article by George Friedman exceptional in its analysis of the limited power of the President and the absolute necessity of anyone holding office to be capable of evolving coalitions effectively in governing domestically and on the world stage: 

U.S. Presidency Designed to Disappoint

Here are some select extracts: 
*** "The American presidency is designed to disappoint. Each candidate must promise things that are beyond his power to deliver. No candidate could expect to be elected by emphasizing how little power the office actually has and how voters should therefore expect little from him. So candidates promise great, transformative programs. What the winner actually can deliver depends upon what other institutions, nations and reality will allow him." 

*** " The power often ascribed to the U.S. presidency is overblown. But even so, people -- including leaders -- all over the world still take that power very seriously. They want to believe that someone is in control of what is happening. The thought that no one can control something as vast and complex as a country or the world is a frightening thought. Conspiracy theories offer this comfort, too, since they assume that while evil may govern the world, at least the world is governed."

Sequestration from the Top Down or From the Bottom Up?

Sequestration requires across-the-board cuts of $85 billion — $43 billion for the Defense Department, $29 billion for non defense agencies and $13 billion for Medicare and other social programs — by Sept. 30. Defense reductions will affect about two-thirds of the Pentagon's $648 billion 2013 budget. Military personnel accounts are protected.

The uncertainty has lasted for weeks and months, as agencies, technically, do not have to make the required cuts until  September 30,2013.  Although the longer they wait, the more pronounced the cuts will have to be toward the end of the fiscal year.

Assuming the major weapons systems battles will be fought and the smoke will clear by default on those that are not affordable, the next largest target in the agency cuts will be manpower -- military, civil service and contractors. 

From what we are reading, the major issue is whether or not the cuts will occur at the top of the hierarchy where the brass (corporate big boys, civil servants the generals/admirals) sit or from the bottom – enlisted men and their benefits and small business.  

Below are 3 different perspectives on this issue for your reading enjoyment, courtesy of our stymied Congress whose budgetary laziness has created the Sequestration Drama. We suggest you choose the one you favor and advise your congressman of your choice. 

THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT ("POGO")

".............for the first time in the more than 200 years that the U.S. has had a standing military, there are fewer than five enlisted personnel for every officer. In other words, today’s military is the most top-heavy  force in U.S. history.

Former Secretary of Defense Gates remarks on this issue per POGO:

"In  his August 2010 speech on Efficiency Initiatives, Gates referred to  these perks as “the overhead and accoutrements that go with” senior  positions, be they military or civilian, within DoD. In an interview  with Newsweek, Gates bemoaned these accoutrements and entourages that  surround generals and admirals, which he believes are indicative of a  military leadership that is “suffering from an inflated sense of  entitlement and a distorted sense of priorities"

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/11/todays-military-the-most-top-heavy-force-in-us-history.html

"DOD BUZZ"

"The head of the U.S. Defense Department vowed to cut 20 percent of some areas of the military bureaucracy in a move estimated to save as much as $2 billion.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made  the announcement while speaking to troops during a trip to Naval Air  Station Jacksonville, Fla.

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little  in a statement e-mailed later in the day said the reductions would  affect the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff and the  Military Service Headquarters over a five-year period beginning in 2015.  They will occur whether or not lawmakers agree on a plan to avoid  automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, he said.
 
“These headquarters reductions should be pursued now,  regardless of future fiscal circumstances,” Little said. “These cuts  will be implemented even if Congress lifts sequester-level budget caps.”

Little didn’t specify how many personnel would be affected. The move may eliminate more than 4,000 jobs, according to an unofficial headcount of those areas. That’s less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the Pentagon’s 2.1 million active-duty troops and civilian employees.

What’s more, the Pentagon bureaucracy has only increased since 2010, when  former Defense Secretary Bob Gates made a similar pledge, raising  questions about whether Hagel — or any defense secretary — can succeed  in thinning the ranks of the military’s top-brass and senior civilians.

The number of positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the  Joint Staff and the combatant commands increased 24 percent, to 21,952  in 2012 from 17,765 in 2010, according to a graphic accompanying a  recent analysis by Marcus Weisgerber, a reporter for Defense News.

More than half of the overall increase came from the Joint Staff, which  simply absorbed positions from Joint Forces Command after Gates ordered  the latter to be shuttered in 2010, according to the analysis.

Hagel’s announcement is based on a strategic review of spending priorities in  the wake of across-the-board budget reductions, Little said.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/17/like-predecessors-hagel-vows-to-cut-military-fat/

The Defense Department faces $500 billion in automatic cuts over the next decade."

"WASHINGTON TECHNOLOGY"

"The Small Business Administration reported that the federal government again missed the mark for small business contracting during  fiscal 2012, but the gap has narrowed for primes.

Overall, $89.9 billion in government contracts went to small businesses last year, that’s 22.25 percent of all contracts, according to the SBA report. The goal for small businesses is 23 percent. In fiscal 2011, 21.65 percent of contracts went to small businesses.

There also are goals for various sub-categories of small businesses:

• Women-owned: 4 percent or $16.2 billion (goal 4 percent)
• Small disadvantaged: 8 percent or $32.3 billion (goal 5 percent)
• Service disabled, veteran-owned: 3.03 percent or $12.3 billion (goal 3 percent)
• HUBZone: 2.01 percent or $8.1 billion (goal 3 percent)

The annual SBA report also tracks small business contracting goals. The gap between goal and achievement is greater there.

Overall, 33.6 percent of subcontracts went to small businesses, with  the goal being 36 percent; however, women-owned small businesses  surpassed their 5 percent goal with 5.6 percent achieved. Small disadvantaged businesses also were over their 5 percent goal with 5.1  percent.

But service-disabled, veteran-owned businesses fell short with 1.8  percent versus a goal of 3 percent, as did HUBZone, which had 1.3  percent of subcontracts against a goal of 3 percent.

SBA’s annual release of its small business goals isn’t without critics. The American Small Business League criticized the report saying it was “completely false and totally unsupported by the facts.”

The group claims that SBA miscalculated the actual federal  acquisition budget, and according to ASBL, small businesses only  received 8.2 percent of prime contracts.

In addition, the group claims that a significant number of large businesses are receiving small business contracts."

Instead of Cutting Services Because of Sequestration, Why Can't Government Departments just Make Their People Work Harder?

 

The title to this post is from a question asked on Quora by a member at that site:

https://www.quora.com/U-S-Federal-Budget/Instead-of-cutting-services-because-of-sequestration-why-cant-government-departments-just-make-their-people-work-harder

 The following is our response:

The US Government is monumentally inefficient and does not design systems, practices and policies like the commercial venue to save money or make a profit.

Government typically designs systems to spend money and perpetuate bureaucracy. They hire armies of high salaried General Services civilians and large, independent contractors to do so on cost plus and time and materials contracts with a baseline that changes every time the wind blows.  We watched this phenomena from the inside for 36 years, trying to control costs. It was a maddening process.

New buzz words continually surface such as "Performance Based Contracting". We have hands on experience with that one. It was made part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in an attempt to pre-establish at contract award those discrete outcomes that determine if and when a contractor will be paid.

Interestingly enough, the blame for the difficulties goes right down the middle, with the government typically having problems defining what it wants as an end product or outcome and looking to contractors to define it for them. More than willing to do so, the contractors detail specific end products or outcomes, set schedule milestones and submit competitive proposals.
The winner is selected based on what the government thinks it needs at the time to fulfill its requirement and a contract is negotiated. Once underway, the government decides it wants something else (usually a management-by-government committee phenomena with a contractor growing his product or service by offering lots of options).

The resulting change of contract scope invalidates the original price and schedule, so a whole new round of proposals and negotiations must occur with the winner while the losers watch something totally different evolve than that for which they competed. The clock keeps ticking and the winner keeps getting his monthly bill paid based on incurred cost or progress payments. The link to a Government Computer News article on this phenomena is below:

http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/42691-1.html
 
The present state of the economy will not allow the aforementioned to continue. Government agencies are now hard pressed to insure the most "Bang for the Buck". It is in the long term interests of astute contractors to assist in that endeavor. The only way to achieve such an objective is through sound technical, cost and schedule contract definition via an iterative process of baseline management and control. The following article is our attempt to address that process:

http://www.smalltofeds.com/2009/08/contract-baseline-management-in-small.html