Why Obama is our “Designer-in-Chief” (and why that may or may not be a good thing)
Submitted by GlimmerGuy on 11/13/2009 – 12:53 pm2 Comments
Recently, while giving a presentation at a design conference, I declared that Barack Obama is our first “Designer President.” Granted, he doesn’t wear those skinny eyeglasses designers seem to favor, and I’ve yet to see him draw circles and arrows on a whiteboard. But it seems clear to me that Obama thinks like a designer. Here are five tell-tale characteristics I’ve noticed.
1. Obama questions what is, and believes in what can be. Designers, as noted in Glimmer, are known for bringing a fresh (and often somewhat naïve) perspective to an existing situation. The designer’s job is to reconsider everything, constantly asking “Why are we doing things the way we’re doing them?” But the designer must do more than question; he/she must be able to envision alternatives and fresh possibilities. And, too, designers must be optimistic enough to believe that the vision is attainable—that we can design our way to progress. Obama clearly has this mindset.
2. He believes in the power of empathy. Obama chose his first Chief Justice on this basis (and was attacked for it by critics who said empathy has no place in the court). Moreover, Obama has surrounded himself with sociologists and behavioral experts (like Nudge author Cass Sunstein) who believe that if we study the ways people act and understand their needs and motivations, we can adapt policy accordingly. This, of course, is exactly what designers do—except they tend to be tweaking products instead of policies, based on what they learn about people’s behavior and needs.
3. He synthesizes. Like a good design thinker, Obama considers lots of possibilities from all sides when trying to solve a problem; he sometimes juxtaposes those conflicting ideas and tries to extract the best parts of each one, in hopes of creating a new approach that is a “smart recombination” of the existing ones. Case in point, his Afghanistan policy: His advisers recently presented him with four options; he told them to come up with another option that synthesized the best parts of all four.
4. He collaborates. Design thinkers tend to understand that you need to bring together people of different backgrounds, disciplines, and skill sets in order to solve complex problems. Obama’s instinct, since taking office, has been to reach across the aisle and try to get people in separate silos to try to work together on particular issues and challenges. He’s had mixed results and has taken heat from members of his own party for doing this, but it’s very much in keeping with the philosophy of collaborative design.
5. He knows how to “make hope visible.” As emphasized in Glimmer, designers are good at showing us a better future—at visualizing new possibilities so that we can all get excited about those ideas and rally behind them. Obama did this beautifully in his election campaign, through the use of sophisticated graphics and imagery—everything from his choice of typeface (Gotham, as designed by Jonathan Hoefler and Tobias Frere-Jones) to his iconic logo (combining a sunrise with the stripes of the flag) suggested optimism, creativity, freshness. And upon taking office, Obama’s team redesigned government communications, particularly websites, to make them more visually engaging and (most importantly) more transparent in terms of providing people with information.
But now that Obama’s in office…
Interestingly, though, as Obama began to roll out some of his big initiatives, such as healthcare reform, that power to “make hope visible” seemed to recede. In fact, the healthcare initiative was introduced in a distinctly wonkish and uninspiring manner—primarily in the form of clunky phrases (“public option”) and laundry-lists of policies amassed in a thousand-page binder. That binder ended up being a design object that was held up and used against the reform plan, by making it seem overly complicated.
So at times, over the past year, Obama seems to have abandoned his good design instincts and resorted to more conventional political approaches. But there is also the question, at least in my mind, of whether being a design thinker is actually a help or a hindrance in the current political environment.
In politics, you can’t fail.
Does politics, in its current form, allow for an “empathizer?” (The way Obama was savaged just for using that word suggests maybe not.) And does the system allow for an experimenter who wants to try new prototypes? In the design process, there is room to continually try fresh approaches, and to have setbacks along the way. Designers actually embrace early failures because it provides an opportunity to learn and to fine-tune the next iteration. But in politics, if you fail in even the smallest way, your enemies swoop in and attack.
Maybe the issue comes down to this: In design, there is a principle known as “forgiveness,” in which designers who are changing something try to anticipate problems and minimize the negative consequences if/when those problems do occur. But in politics, it seems to me, there is no forgiveness.
Would love to know what others think about “Obama as designer.” Do you think he is one? And if so, is he our first Designer-in-Chief—or did, say, FDR beat him to it? And lastly, is design thinking an asset or a liability in the unforgiving realm of today’s politics?
No related posts, but check around GlimmerSite for lots of other interesting articles.
Loading ...
Design is also iteration. There are levels of iteration. I believe every leader is a “Design Thinker”. Some more so than others. There is no doubt that Obama is a great “Design Thinker” What he needs is the populace as a whole following his dream in true “PDCA” style (Plan, Do, Check Act) No country can move forward without integrity, patience,optimism, hard work and last but not least “Innovation”
And not to forget to celebrate our successes of which there are many
The future is in our hands
Right on it is iterative. That’s why if Obama had had more relevant experience and exec leadership, we would not be experiencng the vast number of mistakes and snafus. The US presidency is the worst place for experimental OJT. (on the job training)