Strange Legacy

To Senator Clinton: Deal or No Deal?

Deal or No Deal Graphic Image

I recently watched a rerun of the 100th episode of the wildly popular NBC game show Deal or No Deal. Part of the show’s appeal is its habit of throwing surprise twists at its audience, and this particular episode was no different. For their 100th show, the producers decided to give a previous contestant, arguably the biggest loser in the show’s history, a chance at redemption. During his previous attempt at the game this contestant had the opportunity to walk away with over $200,000; nevertheless, he ended up with only $10 for his trouble. His was the classic case of someone who didn’t know when to quit, and bares some remarkable similarities to Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign for the Democratic nomination.

For those not familiar with Deal or No Deal, contestants are asked to choose a particular briefcase from a set of twenty-six.  Each case represents an amount of money ranging from 1¢ to $1,000,000. The value of each briefcase remains secret until it is opened; thus a player chooses a particular case without knowing its true value. This case represents a guaranteed opportunity – the player can hold on to the case until the very end of the game, open it, and receive whatever dollar amount is displayed inside. However, before this happens the player has the opportunity to open the remaining cases one-by-one to try and get an idea of what his/her own case might be worth. As these other cases are opened, the show’s “banker” will offer the player various amounts of money to buy his/her case. If a player is fortunate enough to open cases with low dollar amounts (thus increasing the odds that his/her own case contains a high amount) the bid goes up. If a player has the misfortune of opening cases with high dollar amounts (thus increasing the odds that his/her own case contains a low amount) the bid goes down. At any time a player can surrender his/her case (sight unseen) and take the banker’s offer instead. It’s pretty common to see players work their way up to a really good bid from the banker, only to continually shout, “No deal!” and persist in opening cases to try and secure higher and higher bids; inevitably they start opening all the wrong cases and walk away from the show with almost nothing.

I can’t help but draw some analogies between these game show contestants and Senator Clinton’s primary campaign. Hillary was the initial frontrunner for the Democratic nomination – Barack Obama’s candidacy got some early attention, but most agreed that he was a long-shot at best. Fast-forward to the present, and Barack has enjoyed the title of presumptive nominee for quite some time. Despite Obama’s persistent lead in pledged delegates, Clinton has run a very strong campaign and has been right on Obama’s heals. This close race has effectively split the Democratic party between pro-Barack and pro-Hillary supporters, and created a lot of animosity between both sides. Democratic leaders are terrified that they may not be able to heal this schism and unite the party in time to defeat the Republican nominee in November.

This concern for party unity has given Clinton tremendous leverage and influence. Despite Barack’s lead in pledged delegates, Hillary has enjoyed a lead in superdelegates for most of primary race. Furthermore, outstanding questions about what to do with the controversial primary votes of Florida and Michigan (where Clinton defeated Obama) suggested that she had a chance to catch up with Barack. All these things gave her continued campaign legitimacy; to drop out of the race when she still had a strong, fighting chance would constitute a tremendous act of self-sacrifice. Senator Clinton could have easily parlayed such sacrifice for substantial political favors among the Democratic elite – perhaps even a position on the ticket as Vice President.

Let’s compare the recent blows to Senator Clinton’s political leverage to a game of Deal or No Deal. By holding out as long as possible before conceding, and attempting to make the Democratic Party as desperate as possible, perhaps Hillary was hoping to drive up the banker’s bid (aka promised political favors) to higher and higher levels. Unfortunately, these last few weeks have opened all of the wrong briefcases. First, she opened the briefcase of defeat in North Carolina and only marginal victory in Indiana – breaking her comeback momentum. Then, she opened the briefcase of losing her lead in committed superdelegates. Next she opened the briefcase wherein John Edwards’ perfect smile gave his endorsement to Barack Obama. And finally, she has just opened the briefcase wherein Florida and Michigan will only be awarded half-votes for their delegates, thus eliminating any possibility for a Clinton victory. Given the absence of any remaining legitimacy for her campaign I strongly suspect that Hillary will not be able to secure the same favors for relinquishing her own briefcase (aka her presidential aspirations) that she might have enjoyed just three or four weeks ago.

Recent news reports suggest that Hillary will make an announcement tonight acknowledging that Obama has enough delegates to clinch the nomination (although her campaign continues to insist she’s not conceding). Rather than a noble act of party loyalty, this admission will only be seen as an acknowledgment of the inevitable. Much like the game show contestant who failed to take the offer of $200,000 and only ended up with enough to buy a cheap lunch, Senator Clinton would have been well advised to push the big, red button and yell, “Deal!” several briefcases ago.

Hi, Christopher Wood here!  I’m interested in what you have to say about this article. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

When Good People Lie: A Tough Truth for Managers

I recently spoke with a frustrated friend who works as a manager at his company. This friend was struggling with feelings of betrayal; he had confronted one of his subordinates about some suspicious behavior – rumors were spreading that this individual was looking for a new job – yet, this subordinate adamantly denied these allegations and pledged his loyalty to his current occupation. As you might guess, a short time later this person handed over his resignation – an act that my friend interpreted as malicious dishonesty and infidelity. Along with the burden of suddenly scrambling to try and replace the skills of the departing employee, my friend was also coping with feelings of betrayal and lost faith in the rest of his subordinates.

Having experienced similar dilemmas in my own managerial experience, I am nothing if not sympathetic for what my friend is feeling; nevertheless, I stop short of assigning the worst motives and harshest labels to employees who are sometimes less-than-honest in a declaration of loyalty to their jobs. I’ve discovered that this dishonesty is generally not a product of malice, but simply a natural result of the inequality that exists in the relationship between managers and the people they lead.

This dilemma is easy to understand when we approach it from a practical point-of-view. Managers wield tremendous power regarding the professional fortunes of their people. All the states in the U.S. (with the exception of Montana) adhere to an “at will” employment doctrine; this doctrine generally allows companies to hire and fire people as they please. Thus, an employee who is testing the waters for better opportunities in the job market has good reason to be fearful of the impact this search could have on his relationship with his current employer. If his boss has reason to doubt his loyalty or commitment, and if he (the subordinate) is unable to secure a new job, such an employee may find his opportunities with his current employer significantly diminished – some employers will even go so far as to mistreat or fire employees they believe to be disloyal.

To prevent unpleasant surprises, many managers will go out of their way to assure their people that their motives for enquiring about a subordinate’s loyalty are completely benign. They insist that employees can freely share their thoughts about leaving the company without any fear of reprisal. Nevertheless, such assurance can seem hollow when compared with the practical reality that managers don’t actually need to state a clear reason for firing or mistreating a disloyal employee. Ultimately, there is very little an employee can do to hold his/her manager accountable for any broken promises in this regard.

This dilemma prevails beyond simple employer/employee relationships – I believe it applies to most relationships in life: pure honesty and trust are almost impossible to cultivate in any relationship where one party can exercise clear power and dominion over the other. Regardless of how responsibly this power is used (or not used) its mere existence will generally serve as a barrier to absolute fidelity. This is not to suggest that loyalty can’t exist between managers and their people, but managers should take care not to harbor unreasonable expectations of the how far this loyalty should apply. The loss or betryal of a valued and trusted employee can be a bitter pill for any manager to digest; nevertheless, it is simply one of the periodic burdens endured by those who aspire to leadership and authority.

Hi, Christopher Wood here!  I’m interested in what you have to say about this article. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!