Do CEO's Make Good Governors? NO!

[OC Investor2]

Originally Posted by silverkris

Here's the thing - in many cases, the skill sets/mind set/approach that make a business executive successful does not always translate well to government service.

For example, the command-and-control mindset that a CEO has in business - they can dictate to their company underlings to a large extent - will fail miserably in the public sector. A elected public official, has to go SELL, convince, and persuade his/her constituencies in order to get things done - there's a lot more negotiation done. Whitman's essentially "declaring war" on civil servants - shows that she doesn't get it.

Bloomberg is the exception to the rule, largely because if you compare him to his predecessor, Giuilani, he is a far, better listener...and less polarizing, even if you don't agree with him.

WHile there is some grain of truth to this, there is also alot of bunk. CEO's negotiate all the time - with customers, suppliers, gov't officails, bankers, shareholders, board members, etc. Anyone who thinks CEO's just bark an order out to solve problems probably does not have alot of experience working in a large company.

As for the civil servants - since the Public empoyee unions are up to there neck in politics in this state, and drive alot of the dysfunction in CA state gov't (and budgets), they are a perfectly legit political target. Her willingness to take them on when they are probably the largest specail interest block in CA politics is a good sign, not a bad one.

[drshang]

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

WHile there is some grain of truth to this, there is also alot of bunk. CEO's negotiate all the time - with customers, suppliers, gov't officails, bankers, shareholders, board members, etc. Anyone who thinks CEO's just bark an order out to solve problems probably does not have alot of experience working in a large company.

The difference is CEO's are negotiating with their peers - governors largely aren't. It's a completely different animal when you're negotiating with many different types of people with varying backgrounds and skillets, education levels and incomes. A CEO simply has way more authority over the company they run than a governor has over their state.

[UB50]

Meg made many errors negotiating when she was at eBay (Skype, Craigslist, eBay Japan, Butterfields, etc.). Why does anyone think she is going to do a better job as Governor?

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

And Jerry can do a better job?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Found this interesting article in yesterday's LA Times written by an economist who points out the dismal track record of CEO's running for either governor or senate in California. Apparently most end of losing anyway after spending huge amounts of money and those that do win end up being disastrous governors or senators. The article points out that only mayor Bloomberg of New York and former mayor Richard Riordan of Los Angeles were CEO's considered to make fairly good politicians.

Riordan was amongst the wealthiest and most prominent corporate attorneys in Los Angeles and was known as a lawyer as well as being into venture capital and private equity.

I'd consider him an attorney-politician more than a CEO politician.

Nearly all CEO's were Republican [even Bloomberg was formerly a Republican].

They left one Dem CEO politician out - Mark Warner, who was universally considered to be a very good governor of Virginia, and who is now a US Senator from VA.

However, Whitman does not have the proper skills to be governor. Fiorina as CEO was high on her own ego/legend which was not matched by her performance.