Primary was filled with business lessons

The Clinton-Obama campaign was about more than elections.

Look beyond your political affiliations and you'll discover more business strategy and leadership lessons than contained in a year of Business Week.

For example, every organization's strategy is based on core assumptions, too often mistakenly interpreted as facts. The Clinton team and journalists assumed that early wins and super-delegate advantages would secure Clinton's nomination on Super Tuesday. The campaign spent money and allocated workers accordingly.

But Obama was a more formidable candidate than anticipated. Super-delegates weren't as loyal as assumed.

By failing to maintain a fallback plan, Clinton's campaign had too little money and too few feet on the street in primaries before and following Super Tuesday.

Clinton eventually found a winning strategy, but too late to secure the nomination.

Learning from conflicts

Furthermore, polarizing conflicts between Bill and Hillary's respective staffs and among her advisers were significant enough to become public. A collaborative team uses conflicts as learning opportunities that unearth winning strategies not previously considered.

As Obama's "no drama allowed" staff collaborated, Clinton's team suffered gridlock, with position power driving decision-making. An aligned and collaborative leadership team usually trumps a dysfunctional one.

Obama's team jumped ahead by also mastering social networking and caucus state campaigning, areas that Clinton's team ignored.

If Clinton had invited new voices (versus cronies) to her table might she have mitigated Obama's gains? Who's building strength in markets you're ignoring?

Leverage strengths

To build a believable and strong brand promise, choose a unique value proposition aligned with external trends impacting your markets. Make sure that it leverages your unique strengths and minimizes your weaknesses.

Obama's "change you can believe in" was a strategic winner. Yes, Clinton was more experienced, but experience gained in a political environment detested by many voters apparently counted less than Clinton expected.

Both candidates learned that detractors and behaviors contrary to one's brand promise can be devastating.

Controversial remarks

What is your organization's version of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled comments, Bill Clinton's racially charged comments, and Hillary's Bosnia lie?

The answer rests in disgruntled ex-customers, employees frustrated by uncaring cultures and marketplace behaviors inconsistent with your brand promise.

Obama survived the minister fiasco by staying with his brand, adding more specifics about what change meant.

His wins forced Clinton to change her brand promise. Her resulting flavor-of-the-day communications hurt her campaign prior to finding a "fighting for the working class" brand.

A final best practice can be learned by contrasting Clinton's over-spending on her prior Senatorial campaign (dealing a deathblow to her once-insurmountable financial advantage) to Obama's wise spending, which allowed him to catch up.

Inefficient management always imposes a penalty on profits or marketplace position.

Some questions to consider:

• Will McCain or Obama win the November election?
• Which campaign is currently listening astutely to targeted voters?
• Who is crafting the strongest believable reason to be elected?
• Who is building the most collaborative campaign team to ensure savvy decision-making in response to likely campaign surprises?

In other words, the winner is being determined this summer, before the fall conventions.

Will money matter? It need not be an advantage out of the gate, as Obama and many come-from-behind businesses have proved.

Try adapting these lessons and others you surmise in the fall election to what you're doing today in your business. Are you taking steps to win customers' votes in the future?

Never take an election victory for granted. Complacency loses votes.

Kay Plantes is a Madison economist, strategy consultant and executive educator.