As the world grows increasingly complex, our ability to communicate has largely been reduced to one-word phrases and/or questions. Bumper stickers, or Twitter(ings).

Perhaps this stems from naive attempts to emulate poets, those long-gone creators of short-verse emotion; or, perhaps from talented photographers (sans I-phones) capable of capturing a wordless moment in one beautifully framed scene.

Whatever:   We no longer seem capable of thoughtful reasoning, empathetic consideration or imagining beauty. We’ve become too busy to think, to imagine, to reflect, and to appreciate.

Instead, we’re now a nation intent on seeking out flaws in the people surrounding us: their political leanings, their views of women in the workplace (or military), immigration, abortion, climate change, racial bias, etc. etc.

Annoyingly, ubiquitous polls pose questions carefully constructed to elicit a response sympathetic to that of the pollster. The purposefully structured questions defy one word answers; though that is what they seek.

Reasons given for this ‘abbreviated thinking’ are many:  the pace of technology, biased news coverage, too many uninformed, unsolicited opinions, vapid politicians, information overload, and/or nerds seeking non-problems to justify questionable `solutions’.

Recently, Atlantic Magazine, on its cover with a totally black background, asked whether President Trump, like the CEO of a corporation, should be fired for doing a bad job. The story inside went on to criticize every act and utterance made by the president during his first four months on the job. How the Atlantic’s editors ever deemed themselves qualified to comment on such a holistic topic is a discussion best left for another day.

But let’s examine President Trump’s unsuitability from Atlantic’s perspective.

• He was, and still is, a CEO in the broadest sense of the term; albeit never the CEO of a public company. There, he would have been serving at the pleasure of the shareholders via a board of directors. (Trying to imagine the U.S. Congress as a Board of Directors is a mind imploding exercise.)
• He possesses an out-sized ego and rejects criticism.
• He surrounds himself with family, friends and like-minded people.
• He is more tactical than strategic.
• He is a charming but brutal negotiator. (a rare combination)
• He is a micro-manager but also a delegator. (another rare combination)
• He has a tendency to see complex issues through a simplistic lens.

Consider:  Are these qualities negative or positive? In the Atlantic’s view, all are negatives.

In truth, however, it depends upon the day and world events beyond his immediate control. (ISIS, North Korea, China’s encroachment in So. China Sea, Manchester bombing). It also depends on the optique of the observer. Is she/he of a particular political or religious persuasion? Native born or immigrant?

When pondering the question of Trump’s competency, I think of my own experience as an interested observer under CEOs at four different companies, and CEO of two companies I founded.  (I’ll resist evaluating my own performance and comment instead on my bosses.)

In normal circumstances a CEO should:

• Be honest and moral in dealings
• Set a clear direction for the company in harmony with the Board of Directors
• Treat employees as valued contributors, not merely expense items
• Maintain a safe and non-judgmental work environment
• Empower and encourage employees to speak out and reach higher goals
• View customers as off-balance sheet assets, not problems to be dealt with

Each of mine had his good points and bad, but in all cases their performance must be judged in light of circumstances at the time. For example: When a company is hemorrhaging cash is not the time to worry about the mix of minority workers, or whether you should increase contributions to the United Way.

How then do Trump’ characteristics measure up, considering his personality and style of managing as listed above?

• Does he work harmoniously with his Board of Directors, i.e. Congress? The answer is no – but I don’t think it matters because my opinion of Congress’ competency is lower than my opinion of the wart hog. Better to be at odds with them than face to face.
• Does his ego get in the way of common sense. Answer is – We don’t yet know, but it helps him when dealing with other world leaders who are insecure and subject to intimidation. That’s a good thing.
• He surrounds himself with family and friends. Is that good or bad? Every boss wants his advisors to be loyal and smart:  most current residents of Zip codes in the 20000 range are not, so he recruited his own crew. So long as Trump’s advisors are not ideologues and remain loyal I don’t see this as a problem.  It really is too soon in his tenure to judge (even if you are a magazine editor).
• More tactical than strategic? It’s what we need at this moment in history. The previous president was so cerebral that he was paralyzed at getting anything done.
• Trump’s negotiating skills are legendary. If he can convince the Islamic world to stop fighting among themselves, and together combat the more radical elements in their midst, he will go down in history as a winner – provided no more American lives are sacrificed in the effort.
• Micro-managing? Not so good.  He needs to get a complete team in place that he trusts – and fast.
• Simplistic world view? His actions thus far reflect a belief that most problems can be resolved by getting all involved personalities in a room, shutting the door, and arriving at a consensus.  That modus operandi is a positive and reflects my own experience in the world of commerce. It works.

Certainly one person in the Oval Office cannot manage all domestic and international problems at the same time.  Not Obama, not Hillary and not Trump. But Trump seems to have prioritized the issues and assigned responsibility where it belongs. He will personally deal with world issues involving national security and America’s economic role. These can be managed through one-on-one negotiations with other leaders – his principle strength.

For the record: Lest you think I’m a Trump-at-any-cost type, I am not convinced the Mexican wall is well advised. I don’t believe it will achieve the intended purpose. I’m pleased to see the budget request has been reduced, but $1.6 Billion is still unrealistic. (I have actually driven 1,250 miles of the southern border and am convinced no wall will curtail the drug smugglers.)  I also oppose the large number of former Goldman Sachs executives in Trump’s cabinet. We already have enough greed in Washington.

On social issues: health care, tax reform, abortion, immigration, social safety nets – he has delegated to others after having made his views known. Legislation in the social arena will bog down because the Board of Directors will argue incessantly over every detail that they perceive might impede their reelection. But they will discuss, pontificate and debate without fear of being bombed by some rogue from abroad who wants to meet twenty virgins in eternity.

And, when Congress inevitably fails at resolving our social ills in a timely manner, the Micro-Manager in Trump will emerge and plant some stakes in the ground.  And the country will continue to grow and prosper – much to the dismayed displeasure of Atlantic Magazine and the NY Times.

You are welcome.

For more, go to: http://www.jameshpyle.com