Cafe de Mello

Jamison Foser, in his Media Matter column "When did experience become a flaw?" summarizes media complaints about Obama relying heavily on for Clinton staffers and Washington insiders in staffing his cabinet and administration. The appointment of Hillary Clinton Secretary of State, Eric Holder for Attorney General, and Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff have been prominently criticized as not boding well for change.

Mr. Foser does a good job in justifying these selections on political and administrative grounds and answering many of the criticisms leveled by those in the media, many of whom seem to be doing little but killing time until something more newsworthy comes along. But can this slate of experienced, skilled, politicians and bureaucrats deliver change?

Yes, President Elect Obama has shown precisely the leadership qualities necessary to engender the change most of the American people so desperately want, but we may have to change as well. One change we all say we want is the end of partisan gridlock in Congress, and the continuous election cycle in the presidency. If we want that change, does it make any sense for us to obsess over whether Obama is being "liberal enough?" Changing ourselves, we must replace questions of whether Obama is governing from the "center right" or "center left" with questions of whether he is implementing effective policies and programs.

Several years ago, I was trained in an organizational development method called "Appreciative Inquiry," (AI) which is designed to foster rapid, positive change in a business or institution. The US Navy, GTE, the United Nations, and innumerable lesser businesses, government units, and schools have employed AI to produce positive change without the excessive turnover of personnel. Under certain conditions, effective leadership can produce systemic change using the strengths of experience personnel, and knowingly or unknowingly, President Elect Obama is following precisely the principles that AI posits as the conditions for such change.

The first condition to develop a shared understanding of the positive core of a system, the features of the system that makes it economically, ecologically, and humanly most effective and vital. From the beginning of his campaign, Obama has stressed our country's strengths: hope, justice, economic opportunity for all, non-militaristic patriotism, and a sense of being our brothers' keeper.

Those who resist the AI methodology often make fun of its focus on the positive and lack of critical analysis of problems, just as Barack was criticized for being too hopeful. He proved his critics wrong. His election was his vindication, a validation of our country's promise.

Another tenet of AI is envisioning shared images of a preferred future. This was the effect of Obama's platform. He shared with us his vision of a tax plan that brings relief to the middle and working class, investments in alternative energy, an end to the war in Iraq, a system that provides universal healthcare, etc., and he has shown no sign of wavering from that vision. Undoubtedly, in choosing his cabinet and administrative team he has selected experts who will share his vision.

My own experience in AI showed me there were two change killers: extreme resistance by unit leaders (we couldn't expect even Obama to produce change using Bush's people), or lack of commitment from the principal leader. Obama has shown us nothing but commitment to focusing on the country's core strengths and using a strong support team to implement his vision.

Letting go of our partisan fears, we can support Obama by and asking only, "Does this policy or program bring us closer to our shared vision of the United States at its best?" We can measure his success not by his politics but by his results.