Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The headline on this blog arose because I read a column by Jennifer Rubin, a commentator who writes for the Washington Post.

Her bottom-line point:

“…we should not be surprised that when one’s circle of advisors is limited only to true believers, especially when those closest to you want badly to remain in proximity to power and defy second-guessing, good decision-making breaks down.  The situation is not limited to politics.”

Her point related to President Joe Biden, asking the question about whether he had constructive naysayers on his front-line staff rather than just those who would say “yes.”

Good point.

In politics and in business, it pays to have key staff who are willing to raise questions about a particular proposed action – and to do so with skill, aplomb, and respect.

As we reflect on why Biden chose to perform a statesmanlike act and pull out of running for re-election, it is analysis by Rubin and others that allows us to go behind-the-scenes…just a bit.

Here is a summary of what she wrote:

“Beyond the Bidens, some Democrats, even those closely aligned with Biden, have focused their anger on the role of the inner circle of Biden advisers who, they claim, shielded him from news conferences and interviews, refused to see a capable president become an unsteady and fragile candidate, cheered his defiance and enabled him to hang on to the detriment of his own legacy.

“CNN singled out Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti in this group:  ‘That tight circle has alarmed many Democrats who are questioning whether Biden is receiving realistic data about the plight of his candidacy.’  But in the end, according to Politico reporting, they presented him with devastating polling from swing states and dreadful fundraising numbers.

“Whether they played a role to persuade him to bow out is uncertain.  But they, too, must have realized that they eventually would be judged harshly, if not cruelly, by history.  They stood to bear a good deal of the blame for preventing the party from constructing a ticket with a realistic shot at winning, downplaying awful polling and propounding the fiction that the rest of the party would eventually fall in line.”

Rubin then asks a salient question.  “Does every team need a skilled contrarian?”

Then, she provides an answer.

“Maybe so, based on new research from Stanford Graduate School of Business, a Stanford Business School report warned in 2015.  ‘It’s important for teams to have a devil’s advocate who is constructive and careful in communication, who carefully and artfully facilitates discussion,’ says Lindred Greer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford GSB.”

The report continued:

“Greer and her research colleagues examined a dynamic in teams, which they call skewed conflict.  In it, one person — or a small minority group acting together — carefully and constructively points out the differences and weaknesses in a team’s approach to a problem.

“When this divergent opinion is presented in a nuanced way in which other members don’t even see the difference of opinion as a conflict, it can provide for a healthy disagreement, the research shows.  That devil’s advocate — which could be an individual or a small minority — has the sensitivity to see differences, perceives them as conflict, and then communicates about the differences in non-confrontational ways.”

In sum, Rubin writes, Biden arrived at an unsustainable position – staying in the race — “largely because of his own history and outlook and the understandable defensiveness of aides and family.”

However, Rubin adds, “Biden and his inner circle eventually managed to recognize that the potential consequences of maintaining a faltering campaign — a devastating November loss, permanent damage to democracy, crushing down-ballot losses — could irreparably mar his legacy and endanger America.

“Biden therefore stands to go down as not only one of the most accomplished modern presidents but also one of the most selfless.  Instead of a tragic demise, this episode might be seen as his finest hour.  He already began the smooth transition by endorsing Vice President Harris.  Now, she and the party can come to together to defend democracy.  Nothing is more important.”

To this, I add an element of my own experience.  It was back in the day when I worked as one of several deputy directors in the State of Oregon Executive Department, now called Administrative Services (which is a change I dislike).

To his credit, the director there, Fred Miller, he wanted said all us of who served close to him to raise questions if we questioned a certain action or sense of direction.  This was important because back in the day the Executive Department director served as the COO of state government.

Under Fred, it was not obey this, obey that. 

It was:  Raise questions and, then, when there was a final decision support it.

That’s good politics.  And good business.

When I raised this question with a friend of mine, a retired business consultant, he said this about cases where a leader does not want contrary thoughts:

“My own experience as a leader of a large team tells me that when either the person in power or with the greatest influence does not want, expect or challenge those around him or her to produce contrasting thoughts and opinions, or leads with fear or retaliation when such perspectives are brought forward, things don’t work well.”

Another good point.