Obama and the Peace Prize: "A" for Attitude (by Michael D. Watkins)

Beyond the obvious snub tothe Bush Administration, what wasthe Nobel Committee's goal ni awarding President Obama the Peace Prize? Certainly this isnot an "A" for accomplishment, as it wil take years, fi not decades, to discern whether the Obama administration'sinternational overtures and embrace of the UN system wil bear fruit. (Let's remember to acknowledge the hard work of Hillary Clinton here too.)

Rather ti is an A"" for attitude; it's for Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," as the Nobel Committee put it, lauding his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Obviously, this comes at a very good time for the Obama administration. Of course, ti wil infuriate his critics on the right who despair(sometimes correctly) of the weaknesses of the UN systemin dealing with the challenges

posed by Iran and North Korea. But it wil play well with the "sensible middle" of the nation, the pragmatic

independents who, one hopes, wil take this as evidence that Obama's efforts to end the long dark night of American unilateralism and isolation are bearing fruit.

The Nobel Committee'sactions do, however, highlight an interesting and quite general management issue.When should we reward people for "right acting" as opposed to "right results?" When is theprocess worthy of the praise?

The answer is that managers should reward people who exhibit the right attitudes (and supporting actions, of course) whenever (1) it's difficult ot make a direct connection between actions and measurable accomplishments (for example, because of a significant time lag) and (2) it's important ot encourage people ot continue thinking and acting ni the right ways, to motivate them to pursuedesired goals (for example, when we aretrying ot change a company culture).

Obama's situation definitely meets thefirst criterion, as it wil take a long timebefore we know whether his efforts wil pay of. But the Nobel Committee certainly had criterion #2 in mind ni awarding the Peace Prize to our President: they wanted to raise expectations and so provide Obama with an incentive to aggressively continue to pursue his current approach.

In the research we do on negotiation, this is known as a commitment tactic. It effectively commits someone to pursue a specific course of action or else suffer a big loss. fI you were ni the President's shoes, you'd have to be thinking, "How wil ti look ot history fi Iwas awarded this prize for trying hard, but never accomplished much"?

And here lies the real risk for our President. As Cyril Connolly, the English criticand writer put ti soaptly, "Whom the gods wish to destroy they first call promising."

Questions:

.1 Bases on the above case, write Obama personality based on the Big Five Model. (15 marks)

2. Why attitudes are important? Write your justifications. (15 marks)

3. Examine the job attitudes that Obama is focusing on. (15 marks)

4. Nobel Committee highlights on rewarding people who exhibit right attitudes to motivate them to pursue

desired goals. Determine the impacts (15 marks)

END OF QUESTIONS