>>But in a dysfunctional organization where people are leaking things to promote their own agenda, and to engage in intra-staff turfwars, you may very well need someone to come in and “end that “sh*t.”
(You’re actually benefitting from something I normally charge a lot for!)
Your statement, in reality, couldn’t be more wrong. Does a drunk admit he’s a drunk when you first ask him? How about you? Are you going to be INSTANTLY persuaded by this post suggesting you are wrong? Of course not to both.
You can’t seriously believe that people in the WH with an ego the size of Alaska are going to just respond, “OK, since you said you were in charge, I’ll behave. No problem. All you had to do was get in my face. Was that so hard??”
Going into an organization, functioning or not, and being confrontational right off the bat is asking for not only trouble but disaster. Go back to you above — when you first read the first or second sentence I wrote, did you IMMEDIATELY think, “hey, this 1L guy knows what he’s talking about; man, telling me I was wrong is just the ticket. I’ll straighten up and go his way...?”
Hell no. You started thinking about how you were going to respond. THAT (or something similar) is how people react to someone coming in and “laying down the law,” so to speak. Use whatever trite phrase you want. They all fail. It took me a long time to learn this and when I adjusted my behavior in these sorts of pursuits, I got results that I was amazed with. I have clients who have had the same experience.
You didn’t answer the question I posed the other person: if someone gets in your face how are you going to respond? How do you think the WH staff is going to respond? If they’re leaking NOW they don’t have Trump’s best interests in mind. What makes you think a “I’m in charge” General is going to make them change that? Also, if this guy is “well known” by the “major players,” as you suggest, what is the point of the “I’m in charge” comment? (Again, IF it was reported accurately).
The General can better “end that shit” in the way I described above — by getting to know the staff as well as possible. Save the speeches for your kids.
You would not have made through the military....
Thanks for the free advice, but I've been senior enough in enough organizations, both within and outside a the military, to have a pretty good sense of what works and what doesn't.
I would agree that words alone are almost never enough to achieve rapid changes in conduct in a dysfunctional organization. General Kelly would agree with that as well- words are rarely enough. Just ask Joe Dowdy. And for that matter, Anthony Scaramucci.
If Anthony Scaramucci's fate isn't enough to get the attention of others on the staff, then you keep firing the problem people until the problem people have either 1) been replaced, or 2) figured out they need to change their behaviors. Frankly, in those situations, the fewer words said, the better. Announce the standards, fire anyone who doesn't comply.
Personally, I've never had to do more than two firings before the listening skills of those remaining improve remarkably. Generally, one is enough. Knowing General Kelly's people skills, I think the firing of Mooch may do the trick. If not, there are plenty of well-qualified people to replace these. These are not unique skill sets.
The General can better “end that shit” in the way I described above — by getting to know the staff as well as possible. Save the speeches for your kids.
"Getting to know" people takes time this Administration does not have. Announce the way things will be, fire anyone who objects, then move forward with those willing to put their own agendas aside and all pull in the same direction.
As for the speeches...all you need is the first one.