can a business executive ever be a successful president?

[SivaGanesha 2]

My question here goes beyond just Donald Trump but I'm asking whether any CEO or other business executive could be a good president without first having a lot of prior political experience in less powerful roles. I'm talking about going straight from the corner office to the Oval Office. On the one hand a CEO has the experience running a large organization and making the hard nosed daily decisions that surely a president must also make. On the other hand there seem to be a lot of unique aspects to the presidency--eg needing to practice sensitive diplomacy with other countries that a business executive doesn't always need to practice with other companies.

I'm not just talking here about Trump but also this year there was Carly Fiorina and in the 1990's Ross Perot--all executives with little successful political experience. Can such a person ever be a good president?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[normiss 798]

It seems to depend on the business person from my perspective.
So far, with what has risen to the surface?
No way in hell.
Maybe the ones that could do it and are qualified are smarter than running for office.

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

Maybe the ones that could do it and are qualified are smarter than running for office.

Anyone good enough to be able to do the job is too smart to want the job -
seems this applies for anyone from any background - including politics

why would anyone want to go through that meat grinder?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

rehmwa

Why would anyone want to go through that meat grinder?

It's an ego proposition. To them, they don't think it's a meat grinder because, "obviously," they're special.

It will be interesting to see how a person such as Trump takes losing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,989]

Quote

My question here goes beyond just Donald Trump but I'm asking whether any CEO or other business executive could be a good president without first having a lot of prior political experience in less powerful roles.

Sure. You can't be a successful CEO of a large company without having a lot of political experience - and a CEO brings a somewhat different skill set to the job, which could be useful in some cases.

[ryoder 1,590]

SivaGanesha

My question here goes beyond just Donald Trump but I'm asking whether any CEO or other business executive could be a good president without first having a lot of prior political experience in less powerful roles. I'm talking about going straight from the corner office to the Oval Office. On the one hand a CEO has the experience running a large organization and making the hard nosed daily decisions that surely a president must also make. On the other hand there seem to be a lot of unique aspects to the presidency--eg needing to practice sensitive diplomacy with other countries that a business executive doesn't always need to practice with other companies.

I'm not just talking here about Trump but also this year there was Carly Fiorina and in the 1990's Ross Perot--all executives with little successful political experience. Can such a person ever be a good president?

Michael Bloomberg went from businessman to mayor of NYC. He is the 6th richest man in the US, so I'd say he was pretty damned successful at business, (and never needed to lie about his wealth). He was re-elected twice as NYC mayor, so apparently a majority of the population thought he was doing something right.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

ryoder

Michael Bloomberg went from businessman to mayor of NYC. He is the 6th richest man in the US, so I'd say he was pretty damned successful at business, (and never needed to lie about his wealth). He was re-elected twice as NYC mayor, so apparently a majority of the population thought he was doing something right.

Bloomberg in NYC is one thing, but could he have gone straight from businessman to President?

For several reasons, I don't think so.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I disagree with the concept that running a business is significantly similar to running a country.

As such, there really is no option for me to vote. Do I think that a successful CEO could be a great President. Sure, but not solely because he was a successful CEO.

[quade 4]

SkyDekker

I disagree with the concept that running a business is significantly similar to running a country.

Agreed.

Few CEOs tend to have people who will oppose almost everything they want to do. Most CEOs (at least ones I've met, dealt with, or otherwise am familiar with), have legions of people who do everything they can to please them. Internal opposition tends to be fired rather quickly.

President's can't do that with anyone other than those in the Administrative branch.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,989]

>Few CEOs tend to have people who will oppose almost everything they want to do.

CEO's at large companies do. They are called "board members" and actually have the power to fire the CEO if he doesn't do what they want, although that power is used very rarely.

[quade 4]

billvon

>Few CEOs tend to have people who will oppose almost everything they want to do.

CEO's at large companies do. They are called "board members" and actually have the power to fire the CEO if he doesn't do what they want, although that power is used very rarely.

Read this part again, "who will oppose almost everything they want to do.

Contrast and compare any CEO with say, Obama and the House of Representatives.

Yes, a CEO can have people who will oppose him on some issues, but a BOD is to a CEO as the electorate is to a President. They wouldn't have put him in place if they fundamentally disagreed with everything he stands for.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

billvon

>Few CEOs tend to have people who will oppose almost everything they want to do.

CEO's at large companies do. They are called "board members" and actually have the power to fire the CEO if he doesn't do what they want, although that power is used very rarely.

This being the same board that gives them lavish contracts and golden parachutes? The board hasn't been an effective check in decades...usually they're in bed together.

Bloomberg seems like a valid example. (Can't think of any others) NYC is more populous and challenging than 39 states, so "mayor" should be translated to "governor," the primary feeder for Presidents in the last century. However, he would have hit more effective checks on his powers in DC. This is unlike the working environment for the CEO as well - the person loses the authority to act unilaterally, executive orders notwithstanding.

OTOH, Fiorina was not a successful CEO, and Perot ran for a third party. I believe he's the most successful (in terms of vote) third party candidate in modern history. But being batshit crazy, he would not have been a very good President.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

billvon

>Few CEOs tend to have people who will oppose almost everything they want to do.

CEO's at large companies do. They are called "board members" and actually have the power to fire the CEO if he doesn't do what they want, although that power is used very rarely.

True, though board members still are best served by the success of the company as a whole. More and more now, the opposition wants total failure in politics.

[billvon 2,989]

> but a BOD is to a CEO as the electorate is to a President.

Well, no. The BOD is to a CEO as Congress is to a President; the shareholders are to a CEO what the electorate is to a President.

>They wouldn't have put him in place if they fundamentally disagreed with
>everything he stands for.

And the BOD he works with is not necessarily the same BOD that put him there to begin with. We just went through that experience ourselves; an activist investment group bought a large chunk of shares so they could change the CEO's direction.

[billvon 2,989]

>This being the same board that gives them lavish contracts and golden
>parachutes?

Often, no. Boards change with time.

[ryoder 1,590]

kelpdiver

This being the same board that gives them lavish contracts and golden parachutes? The board hasn't been an effective check in decades...usually they're in bed together.

The corporate finance textbook I was reading over the last few months called this a "captured board".

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Elisha 1]

billvon

> but a BOD is to a CEO as the electorate is to a President.

Well, no. The BOD is to a CEO as Congress is to a President; the shareholders are to a CEO what the electorate is to a President.

>They wouldn't have put him in place if they fundamentally disagreed with
>everything he stands for.

And the BOD he works with is not necessarily the same BOD that put him there to begin with. We just went through that experience ourselves; an activist investment group bought a large chunk of shares so they could change the CEO's direction.

Yes...and also ad regulatory agencies and business partners. Things done contrary to the desires of the CEO/company have to be done for regulatory or business relationship reasons. It's called negotiating and compromise.

[riggerrob 643]

.......

This being the same board that gives them lavish contracts and golden parachutes?
............

Contract negotiation skills (for any new hire) are measured during negotiations for pay, medical benefits, severance packages, etc.
The better a new CEO negotiates his own wages and benefits, the more likely he will negotiate the biggest corporate profits in any contract with outside suppliers or clients.

This attitude also extends to executives at publically-held corporations. For example, last year BC Transit paid an outside consultant close to half a million dollars to steer public opinion during a referendum on a new tax to fund public transit: buses, ferry boats and sky train. Unionized bus drivers kept waiting for management to bring voters up to speed on BC Transit operating costs. We never saw any effort to educate the public. The public remained as well-informed as a bag of hammers, but the consultant still collected his large fee.
What did that executive consultant do?
Did bus company management have a different agenda that required the tax referendum to fail?

[HapHazard 0]

Truman, Coolidge, Hoover, Harding, Lincoln - would you call those bad presidents?

[kelpdiver 2]

HapHazard

Truman, Coolidge, Hoover, Harding, Lincoln - would you call those bad presidents?

those 3 in the middle - yep. Harding is consistently rated among the worst (lowest quartile) and the other two are 50/50 between the 3rd and 4th quartiles.

How was Truman a business exec? He was a judge and senator before getting picked to replace an unpopular VIP. He had a hat business apparently that failed in the early 20s.

Or Lincoln? He was a lawyer, then a House Representative.

[wmw999 2,439]

If the executive leads by commanding, I'm not sure he or she can do a good job. Gummint just doesn't obey like scared employees do.

If they lead by example, and by seeking and building teams, there's a better chance.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Coreeece 2]

SivaGanesha

can a business executive ever be a successful president?

Yes, especially in the midst of our next bursting phase. Part of me hopes that it happens within the next couple months before a major election, as the trends suggest.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[peek 21]

Can a former actor ever be a successful president?

(Sorry, I'm going to be a trouble maker and answer the question with another question.)

[rehmwa 2]

wmw999

If the executive leads by commanding, I'm not sure he or she can do a good job. Gummint just doesn't obey like scared employees do.

If they lead by example, and by seeking and building teams, there's a better chance.

Well, there you go again - saying things like "it depends on the leadership style of the individual"


If you can't just take some tired stereotype of a CEO and then make broad statements about their ability to be president, you're just wasting our time with your 'reasonable outlook' on people.

sheeeesh

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,989]

>If the executive leads by commanding, I'm not sure he or she can do a good job.
>Gummint just doesn't obey like scared employees do.

>If they lead by example, and by seeking and building teams, there's a better chance.

So a good CEO could make a good president, but a bad CEO would probably make a bad president?

What is with you and your "shades of gray" approach to everything?