“My job is a job to make decisions. I’m a decision—if the job description were, what do you do—it’s decision maker… I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.”
- George W. Bush

It is undeniable that change rather than maintenance of the status quo is the major theme in the run for the White House. Taking into account that a commonly accepted practice in finding new direction and moving forward involves an examination of one’s current situation it seems appropriate to take some time to analyze the leadership style and organizational make-up of our current administration.

• Within the Bush administration formality and structure are important and decisions are made based on hierarchy, values, and loyalty.
• Great emphasis is placed on: stability, reliability, functionality, and pragmatism.
• There is mistrust of theory, the abstract, and the complex.
• A great deal of energy is exerted in establishing and guarding one’s “turf”.
• Importance is placed on adapting what exists rather than creation of something new, when things are modified it is usually done incrementally rather than starting over.
• Those within the organization who do well like time-tested methods and work hard to ensure protection of the past and traditional ways of doing things.
• Decisions are made behind closed doors—not just out of necessity, but also by preference.

Recent events in the presidential campaigns have clearly indicated that Bill Clinton will be a significant player in Hillary’s campaign, as well as, an active player. In her presidency should that take place? This is not surprising considering they are married, but more importantly it brings together two similar psychological identities. Both are tactical operators that function in the past and the present. With the increased involvement of Bill in the campaign there has been an increase in the objective and detailed approach to the campaign, which is manifesting itself in increased tactical maneuvering directed at Obama. These transactional operators respond to immediate needs by applying tactics used in the past and may ignore the consequences their immediate actions have on the future. Bill’s actions with women while President failed to weight the serious consequences that resulted in his impeachment proceedings and the vast waste of energy and time in fighting this issue. Clearly, Bill Clinton makes decisions of expediency designed to solve immediate problems. Hillary operates in a similar fashion, basically satisfying immediate needs, such as remaining in office, and voting for a misdirected war rather than challenging the majority thinking at the time.

It is clear that Obama is facing a different entity than just Hillary Clinton. This new opponent might best be called the campaign effort. “Billary” has been successful in forcing Obama’s attention from his successful transformational agenda to the day-to-day infighting and accusations brought by the “Billary” campaign.

To the extent possible, Obama should avoid the “Billary” tactical attack and stay focused on the transformational agenda of reversing the Bush administrations’ fiascos. The “Billary” agenda will not provide the forward thinking necessary to reverse present trends. Only a significant paradigm shift will accomplish this and only a transformational leader possesses the psychological wiring to make this paradigm leap.