Are Ex-CEOs Solution to Government Fiscal Problems?
CEOs are by no means new to politics, but with jobs and budgets on everyone's minds these days, it's not a stretch to think that successful CEOs might fare better at solving tough fiscal problems than career politicians.
California's republican voters seemed to think so, nominating former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (pictured) to go up against veteran politician Jerry Brown for governor, and former HP chief Carly Fiorina to challenge incumbent Barbara Boxer for state senator.
Well, if this is the beginning of a trend, it begs some pointed questions, like do CEOs make good politicians, how might Whitman and Fiorina fare, and who might be next? Let's check out a couple of examples of CEOs who've attempted the transition.
First, there's N.Y. Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The former CEO of his namesake company, Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative whose management style promotes accountability and results. Twice reelected and with high approval ratings, I would absolutely call Bloomberg's political career, to date, a success.
But former N.J. Governor Jon Corzine didn't fare so well. After a failed reelection bid, the former Goldman Sachs CEO told Newsweek: "The idea that you're accountable to a bottom line and to a payroll in managing a business - it gives voters the confidence that you have the right skills [to govern]. But it's 20,000 people versus 9 million. I don't think candidates get the scale and scope of what governing is. You don't have the flexibility you imagined."
From these and other examples, I think success in politics has more to do with skills in leading people - driving a diverse group of stakeholders to consensus - than experience in managing a business. That said, a sticky partisan situation, like a republican governor with a democratic state legislature, for example, is a wild card that can potentially trump leadership skill.
Now, if Meg Whitman beats out Jerry Brown, it'll put that hypothesis to the test. In leading eBay from early startup to internet giant and surviving the tech bubble, Whitman proved to be a strong and flexible leader with a unique ability to know when to take risks and when to manage conservatively. But whether she has what it takes to turn California around remains to be seen.
Fiorina's another story entirely. Chartered by the board to turn around HP, Fiorina shook up the flagging tech giant, engineered a megamerger with Compaq, and achieved rock-star status in the process. Unfortunately, that's not what HP needed, and the board replaced rock star Fiorina with operating star Mark Hurd. That said, senators don't run a government, they represent their constituents in Washington and make laws, so being a passionate leader instead of an operational heavyweight might be a good thing.
Who's Next?
Honestly, I have no idea why any successful executive would want to be in politics. I'm a control freak, so I know the bureaucracy, the inefficiency, and, well, the politics of government would drive me bananas. Why Whitman would spend $71 million of her own money for the privilege - just for starters - I have no idea.
Fiorina, on the other hand, I get. After what happened at HP, I think she has something to prove.
In case there's something to the "female tech CEOs" thing, a couple of other possible candidates that come to mind are former Xerox CEO Anne Mulcahy and former Yahoo president Sue Decker. And maybe, down the road a ways, Google vice president Marissa Mayer.
Image from CC 2.0 via Flickr, photo by Max Morse