"If this President Worked at Microsoft"

Tuesday there was the first--and almost certainly the only--debate between WA-08 challenger Darcy Burner (Contribute) and incumbent Dave Reichert.  During the debate, Darcy made the bold statment:

"You deliver results or you get fired. If this President and this Congress worked for Microsoft, they would have been fired."

Well, I DO work at Microsoft, so I thought I'd provide a more detailed insight into how the President's performance would be evaluated here.  Find out on the flip...

First, to clarify the analogy: the President as an employee of Microsoft implies the American people (or the Congress, if they bothered to exercise any oversight) as the President's manager.

In reality, the President was interviewed in November of 2000, and after a contentious internal debate over whether to offer him the job, upper management stepped in and mandated that he be hired.  At Microsoft, that would never have happened.  If the hiring manager didn't approve, that's it.  It is basically unheard of for upper management to interfere in a hiring decision like that, which naturally, would lead to a strain between the President and his new boss.

Still, new employees are typically given about six months to figure out how to operate in Microsoft's unique environment--to get themselves oriented, as it were, and to start "firing on all cylinders" as the lingo around here goes--before any substantial results are really expected.  Substantial experience over many years and thousands of new employees shows that this is a reasonable expectation, and that employees who turn out to be successful can get their acts together in six months and begin to contribute meaningful results to their teams.  That's the situation the President would have found himself in from late January, 2001 until early August.

Of course, the President wasn't exactly coming in to an entry-level position in government.  Having previous CEO-level experience with Texas Hold'Em, Inc., the President would be coming into Microsoft most likely at the VP level, reporting to one of the divisional directors.  Coming in at that level, the six-month "newbie" period would be shorter, and expectations of high performance after that period would be commensurately stronger.

From day 1, the President would have had weekly, or possibly semi-monthy, "one-on-one" meetings with his immediate manager.  The purpose of those being to make sure the President's work was on track, that he was making the right connections with peers and others elsewhere in the company, that he was identifying the right strategic directions to be taking his organization, that he was on top of the competitive landscape with competitors such as NKC (Northern Korea Corporation), Taliban Ltd, and other identified by his predecessor.  The President would also be expected to keep a weather eye out for new up-and-coming competitors, such as Al Qaeda, LLC.  The President's manager would have questioned the president to make sure he was on top of the market research coming from the Competitive Investigations Arm (CIA) division of the company, etc.  The President's manager would certainly have questioned him as to the President's choices regarding whether to pursue strategies identified by his predecessor, or to change course.

However, Microsoft is big on self-direction and accountability (as in: as long as you're doing what you think is right for the team, and are willing to be accountable for success or failure, then go for it!).  So, while the President's choices to heed or disregard reports from the CIA division or contained in the files left behind by his predecessor may have led to some raised eyebrows from the President's manager, he would likely have been allowed to implement those choices as he saw fit during August and early September, 2001.

Then, of course, 9/11 happened.  The President's job description specifically names the prevention of such incidents as a critical job function.  A failure of that magnitude, particularly one so public in nature, would have a number of immediate ramifications.  

First, the President's manager would, in his next one-on-one or sooner, have called him on the carpet to demand one hell of an explanation for such a colossal fuck-up.  But that's at Microsoft.  In the real world, the immediate reaction was for everyone to get behind the President and support him.  I can't quite figure that one out.

Second, the President's manager would have demanded an immediate "post mortem" of the incident.  The name "post mortem" is a little too accurate for comfort, when applied to a situation like 9/11, but that's what we call them here.  Post Mortems are just post-project reviews of what went well and what went badly, with an eye towards doing more of the former and getting to the root causes of the latter, so that the next project will go smoother.  The post mortem would have identified many failings on the part of the President and his team to adequately prepare for, prevent, and respond to the 9/11 attack.  At Microsoft, such a post-project review would happen immediately and as a matter of course.  In the real world, there was a post mortem, too.  It was called the 9/11 commission, but of course it didn't happen immediately, and almost didn't happen at all except for the loud demands of the 9/11 widows.  Sad, sad, sad.

Third, in light of the findings contained in the post mortem report, the President's manager, in conjunction with Human Resources, would have had no choice but to put the President on what is called a "PIP"--a "Performance Improvement Plan."  This is basically a plan, spelled out in excruciating detail, for what the President would need to do and change about his behavior in order to a) demonstrate acceptable levels of performance and results, and b) keep his job.  Being subject to a PIP is, by all accounts, no fun.  Basically, the normal high-degree of autonomy one experiences as a Microsoft employee would be revoked, and would be replaced with constant scruitiny by the manager, bordering on micro-management, until the employee demonstrated an ability to perform at expected levels.  Having the post-mortem report in hand, the President's manager would almost certainly have used that report's findings as the basis for most of the expectations spelled out in the PIP.  That's what would happen at Microsoft, but in the real world, the media and the nation gave Bush some sort of total get-out-of-jail-free pass after 9/11, that seems to have had a four-year expiration date stamped on it.  I can't really figure that one out either.

Fourth, and perhaps most meaningful to President Bush himself, the 9/11 incident represents such a severe blot on his performance record for the year that he would almost certainly have received zero dollars in bonus and zero stock options at annual performance review (which, coincidentally, comes in late September).

The President's performance since 9/11, and particularly the failure to act on the post mortem report's findings indicate that he wasn't meeting his PIP, and that his one-on-ones with his manager were probably pretty grim, uncomfortable meetings.  The President would have been receiving strong messages that his job was in jeopardy, messages that would have been vetted and recorded by the HR staff in case they were needed in court later.

The President's response to Katrina would have sealed the deal.  The President's manager would have had no real choice--and would probably have been glad for the opportunity--to conclude that the President just wasn't a good fit for the position, and that his services were no longer required.

That's what would have happened at Microsoft, a place where results matter, and accountability is the norm.  Darcy's right: the President would indeed have been fired.  Too bad results and accountability have so little weight in the real world of modern politics.