After criticizing President Obama’s handling of several crises, I am now inclined to give him much higher marks on his handling of several critical issues. Handling crises requires a quick, decisive, confident response. Handing issues requires a much different approach.
In the case of Syria and Russia the president took too long to respond. His time-consuming analytical approach made him look indecisive. In the case of Syria he drew a line in the sand but then ignored it. In the case of Russia he made demands and imposed consequences that Putin ignored, giving Russia the appearance of seizing the upper hand.
Nuclear power negotiations in Iran and renewing trade with Cuba were handled much better. Effective leadership on issues requires clarifying all competing positions and then imagining possible compromises that can lead to acceptable win-win conclusions. With Iran and Cuba this is being managed more skillfully.
The fact is, effective leadership on issues allows for making a favorable impression even when a deal is not reached. This is because the deliberation process itself can make news, and skilled leaders have the opportunity to sound impressive and come off looking like statesmen.
Crisis communication is a matter of confidently and quickly doing the right thing. But leading on issues is more a matter of strategic thinking and skillful facilitation.
While Obama is not a participant in the EU vs. Greece deliberations, it will be very interesting to see which participants get high marks as leaders, and why.
Larry D. Lauer 
Leave a Reply