Joel Peterson the Chairman of Jet Blue wrote an article recently arguing that it might be a good idea to elect a former CEO as the next President. The following is my response:
To believe that being a CEO is sole qualification for being President illustrates a complete disregard to the highest office in the land, not to mention our Constitution and the laws which both empower and inhibit our government leaders. You cannot run a country like a business, even a non-profit business. That’s not to say that there isn’t a CEO out there that wouldn’t have the skillset to make the jump to world leader, but they would have to be someone who can adopt a philosophy that would restrict their instincts to be the sole organizational leader. In this country, they are not.
Joel Peterson states that “The Cabinet and the agencies, as well as Congress, work best when they’re rowing together. That doesn’t mean everybody agrees. But the relentless infighting that has come to dominate Washington produces gridlock. A president with deep experience herding cats at a large company might offer a way that seems to escape career politicians.”
Agreed. However, the Constitution prevents a President from herding the cats in the way you propose. To row in the same direction the President must have the ability to hire everyone in the Cabinet, the Senate, Congress, and the Supreme Court. That’s not the United States, its North Korea. A President does not always get to choose the best candidate to hire. Around 1000 positions in government need to be approved by a committee of 100, who combined, have equal power to the President. They’re called the Senate. Granted some CEO hires have to be approved by a Board of Directors. However, I’ve never seen a board of 100. This is not to mention the pressures put on each of those Senators to either approve or disapprove of those appointees either through their constituency or the Press. Imagine if every corporate decision had to be agreed to by 60 out of 100 people.
Oh yes…they do. Platitudes is what constituents want to hear. In your position you should already know that the general public doesn’t care what you do, but how you say it. Regan was brilliant at it, with Kennedy running a close second, and both paled in comparison to FDR. The public doesn’t care about the facts, it’s the message. Look how investors react to speculation and not fact. If you research the economic and political accomplishments of a President, you will find that the ones with good communication skills were always more beloved than the ones without. This is regardless of their accomplishments. Also, every President puts forth objectives each year. They’re blocked from accomplishing those goals by the 400+ other leaders in the government. Not everyone has the same goals and objectives and a President, unlike a CEO, doesn’t get to choose what those are.
Name One. It has been my experience that CEOs are equally capable of presenting a public face that greatly differs from corporate reality. The obvious organizations are WorldCom, Enron, Chevron, BP, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc. I could keep writing but my fingers are getting tired. A CEO’s job is as chief salesman. Most of them can spin on a scale that would dizzy Richard Nixon. Therefore on your point, I concede, they would do better than most politicians. Presidents, like most people, have the greatest intensions, however, when decisions are made by committee, it is always that the best laid plans are fraught with disaster.
Yes it has, but no more than it ever has. Imagine what Lincoln dealt with. Also, I doubt you will find a President, ANY President who does not or has not celebrated the values of our country. They are the greatest purveyors of our culture. So why is it toxic? The Government will blame the Press, and the Press the Government. I blame the voter. They accept it as if politics is an MMA fight. You would have to change the culture of the entire United States to change the culture in government. No one individual can do that. And keep in mind that the voter is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the entire enterprise, and you can’t fire a non-participating voter like you can a worker.
They all explain the metric, and I agree, some of them have changed it based on the outcome. But this happens in business as well. However you can argue that sticking to a concrete political agenda even though the world changes around you would be a disaster. We’d still have slavery. Businesses that fail to move with the times fail. Presidential Cabinets are very accountable for their successes. They get four years to either correct, or destroy, the work of the previous administration. If they do a good job, they get four more. If not, then we have mechanisms in place to even prevent them from the four.