Getty Images
In last week’s Republican debate, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump argued about who was the better businessperson. The question we need to ask is why it matters.
Let’s stipulate for the record that both Fiorina and Trump have succeeded and failed greatly in the business world. Trump likes to say he’s worth $10 billion, and although the real figure might be closer to a third of that, he’s certainly made a lot of money. Still, as Fiorina pointed out, his businesses have filed for bankruptcy on four occasions.
Fioriana likes to say that she went from “secretary to CEO,” which is a stretch since she was a secretary only when she was in school. Still, in a man’s world of glass ceilings, she rose to lead one of the nation’s biggest companies. But Trump and others point out that she crashed and burned at Hewlett-Packard, where she was fired after presiding over a disastrous run. The day she was let go, HP stock rose 7%.
But what about even a mythical CEO with a perfect record? Could they do wonders for the nation? Left unchallenged is the notion that those who succeed in business would do the same in government. Not only is there little evidence for that, but there are plenty of reasons why success in business might not predict the same in the public sector.
The only president America has elected based largely on his success in business was Herbert Hoover, who had no electoral experience at all. This did not end well. And the two presidents elected in recent decades who touted their business acumen over their stints in public office were baseball team owner George W. Bush and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter. While Carter has earned respect as a former president, he was not regarded as effective in office and Bush’s tenure doesn’t require further comment.
There are good reasons for this. Not only does private-sector success not necessarily translate to success in public office, but the habits private-sector leaders adopt might actually hurt them in the public realm.
When a private-sector CEO makes a decision, those around him tend to ask if they would like fries with that. When a public leader makes a decision, he has to continue convincing people it’s the right one. Legislative bodies balk, bureaucrats believe they can wait out the new boss, the press second-guesses, political enemies stir the pot and civil service rules make it all but impossible to replace those who would stand in the way or who are just plain incompetent.
Moreover, the public leader acts in an environment of transparency. Virtually all of his emails and written communications are public record. He needs to explain and explain and explain. When private managers make decisions, few are allowed to peer over their shoulders or question their motives. They may need to explain something to their boards and occasionally to their employees, but if they’re making money for their bosses, explanations aren’t really needed.
And when public managers fail or find themselves in the company of failure they tend to wind up paying the price. When an array of horrors was discovered at Veterans Administration hospitals, Gen. Eric Shinseki was forced to resign, despite the fact that the problems didn’t start on his watch. When the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges got off to a bad start, the writing was on the wall for Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, again despite her reputation as having been a pretty good public servant. There are no severance packages in public service, and the public careers of Shinseki and Sebelius are over.
But when Fiorina steered Hewlett-Packard into the ground she was forced out the door with a $42 million golden parachute, and she apparently believes that failure in private-sector management still equips her to run the country. Fiorina has impressed many with her confidence, but this approaches delusion.
And, of course, Trump displays no promise at all as a public leader. He is willfully ignorant of the issues, apparently too lazy to learn on the fly, dismissive of anyone who doesn’t worship at his altar and insulting to friend and foe alike.
Public leadership at the highest levels demands a skill set that Trump and Fiorina lack in a profound way. But frankly, almost any private-sector business leader would find it hard to make that adjustment. Public management requires a level of patience, finesse, humility and understanding that most private-sector managers have never had to employ.
There’s an old joke that Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels. Public-sector leaders can relate to that. Trump and Firoina are no Ginger Rogers.
