With the debt ceiling talks wrapping up (for now), it's a great time to look at what went wrong and what we might do differently going forward. After all, Congress has only succeeded in kicking the can down the road, since the core debate about future spending and revenues was postponed.
Something about the latest debt ceiling talks reminds me of kids' play gone awry. Boehner stomps out of the talks, claiming the other side changed the rules mid-game. Obama gets on his soapbox, whining about how his playmate "left him at the altar." Grow up! Didn't we ostensibly elect adults to do the peoples' business in Washington?!?
In a recent Forbes.com column, I focused my attention on this dysfunctional behavior in Washington and argued -- would things have turned out differently if women had been in charge?
I believe the answer is yes, here's why. First, women in charge of such a crucial negotiation would not let testosterone get the better of them. The posturing, strutting and "acting out" being done by the men in Congress is a direct result of testosterone gone wild under stress. You see this most often on Wall Street where stress and big-money decisions are the order of the day. Michael Lewis called those guys "Big Swinging Dicks" and Tom Wolfe anointed them "Masters of the Universe." If you need academic proof, take a look at John Coates' research on men and testosterone on the trading floor.
Second, most women negotiators in tough discussions tend to work toward win-win solutions for all concerned. Sure, men say they want this too, but how many of them actually embrace that outcome? Several scholars have analyzed male versus female negotiation styles and found that women tend to use more "integrative tactics" (cooperatively listening, sharing information, asking questions and working toward mutual solutions). In contrast, men tend to use threats, bluff, stake out extreme positions, and use competitive and confrontational tactics. Moreover, women are often more persistent when negotiating with men, and their efforts tend to produce better outcomes for all parties.
It seems unreasonably simple to me: if your household budget is out of balance, the rational person would seek to increase income while decreasing expenses. For a country that put a man on the moon and ran a taxi service to the International Space Station, this is not rocket science! Maybe the problem is men...
So I started wondering -- what would an agreement that was driven and hammered out by women look like? Here are some ideas:
- Cut the military's budget. Even the outgoing Director of Defense said it was bloated so this should be a no-brainer.
My husband doesn't see this list as particularly "female." Fair enough. But would he actually get it done? Not likely, he says. I think that women, working with a few competent and low-ego men, actually could.
For the next round of discussions, Congress would be well served to appoint some women to the Joint Select Committee that's charged with really wrestling down our long-term deficit.