Are corporate CEO and President comparable management skills?

Are corporate CEO and President comparable management skills?

Yes? No? In between? Why, or why not?

Yes. Carli Fiorina was a bad CEO. So it is safe to assume she would be a bad president.

Apparently not. No CEO would be around if their stat sheet looked like America's.

However, if a POTUS were to run America like a corp?? Where the best interests of the stockholder were kept.

radcen said:

Are corporate CEO and President comparable management skills?

Yes? No? In between? Why, or why not?

Click to expand...

Umm...hell no. The goals and necessities of government are very different from business.

radcen said:

Are corporate CEO and President comparable management skills?

Yes? No? In between? Why, or why not?

Click to expand...

"In some ways yes, in some ways no."

You can obtain various skill sets and experience being a CEO/President in the corporate world and see those skills and experience put to use as a President of a nation, but it would be a mistake suggesting one is a prerequisite to the other. Where we run into problems is looking at the goals of a corporation being comparable to the goals of a nation, as such you cannot really run one with the same intentions as the other.

Ikari said:

Umm...hell no. The goals and necessities of government are very different from business.

Click to expand...

In what ways? In both cases the goal is to use the limited resources most effectively. Of course, obfuscation of results and efficiency is easier in the case of nations than corporations.

joG said:

In what ways? In both cases the goal is to use the limited resources most effectively. Of course, obfuscation of results and efficiency is easier in the case of nations than corporations.

Click to expand...

That's the stated goal of government. The real goal is to perpetuate the bureaucracy at all costs, literal and figurative.

joG said:

In what ways? In both cases the goal is to use the limited resources most effectively. Of course, obfuscation of results and efficiency is easier in the case of nations than corporations.

Click to expand...

No. Corporations are about managing a "profit stream" for the benefit of vested interests. Nations require management to the benefit of all. Corruption twists "who benefits," with many deleterious results demonstrated by "Vulture Corporatism/Capitalism" in our current political environment. It's the gov'ts job to encourage infrastructure for the benefit of citizens and oftentimes that means allowing or encouraging development of Corporations/businesses that support that infrastructure. It's great if there is no corruption or dishonesty. Our current flagrant example of misspent infrastructure monies is the Military Industrial Corporate Complex and the Misnomer "National Defense" that in reality is an offensive killing machine. Defense is good and logical; offensive hegemony is bad but profitable for the CEO class.

radcen said:

Are corporate CEO and President comparable management skills?

Yes? No? In between? Why, or why not?

Click to expand...

To an extent I’d say very much so, especially in relation to the massive international corporations with multiple divisions working in multiple fields. They’re both managing lots of different departments, delegating roles and responsibilities to subordinates and making the high-level decisions. They both have to do lots of people management and team working since there is no way for them to directly run every element of the organisation they’re responsible for.

I think CEOs will tend to have more direct control and even where they have to answer to others (shareholders or boards), their aims and motives will generally all be pushing in the same kind of directions – ultimately making as much money as possible. Presidents tend to have a much wider and mixed set of people and opinions to satisfy, from voters, congress/senate, businesses, campaigners, other nations etc. CEOs also face much less public and media scrutiny day-to-day unless they’re involved in some specific issue.

I think it’s worth mentioning that CEOs and Presidents can be guilty of the same failures too, notably getting caught up in the structures and procedures and too distant from the practical realities of what they’re actually in place to achieve and the people they impact.

joG said:

In what ways? In both cases the goal is to use the limited resources most effectively. Of course, obfuscation of results and efficiency is easier in the case of nations than corporations.

Click to expand...

Government is not out to make a profit, nor should it be. Government is a system wherein the sovereignty of the People is utilized to create a system of laws and regulations for the betterment of the People. It is a large, aggregate beast with an ability to print and regulate the value of its own currency. It wields the power of the People and military strength and must engage in domestic and international politics and diplomacy.

A business exists to make money. Government and business are two completely different entities.

radcen said:

That's the stated goal of government. The real goal is to perpetuate the bureaucracy at all costs, literal and figurative.

Click to expand...

There are similar forces at work at least in most traditional corporations. This was wonderfully demonstrated, when Manufacturer Hanover or GM or EON or Credit Liyonais ran out of shielding. This is and there you are quite right always a huge immobility in bureaucracy that grows with its size. This does queer the functioning of any organization. But that is true in public as well as in large private ones.

DaveFagan said:

No. Corporations are about managing a "profit stream" for the benefit of vested interests. Nations require management to the benefit of all. Corruption twists "who benefits," with many deleterious results demonstrated by "Vulture Corporatism/Capitalism" in our current political environment. It's the gov'ts job to encourage infrastructure for the benefit of citizens and oftentimes that means allowing or encouraging development of Corporations/businesses that support that infrastructure. It's great if there is no corruption or dishonesty. Our current flagrant example of misspent infrastructure monies is the Military Industrial Corporate Complex and the Misnomer "National Defense" that in reality is an offensive killing machine. Defense is good and logical; offensive hegemony is bad but profitable for the CEO class.

Click to expand...

I do realize that there are differences between public and private goods. I also realize that politicians' hold on power is based on opaque and fuzzier information. But this does not mean that you would want lousy people running government.

Ikari said:

Government is not out to make a profit, nor should it be. Government is a system wherein the sovereignty of the People is utilized to create a system of laws and regulations for the betterment of the People. It is a large, aggregate beast with an ability to print and regulate the value of its own currency. It wields the power of the People and military strength and must engage in domestic and international politics and diplomacy.

A business exists to make money. Government and business are two completely different entities.

Click to expand...

That sounds grand. But in both cases they are a small group of people employed to optimize the regulation for factor allocation they use to produce the goods. Sure there will be differences between decisions to find the right price instead of the right trade-off between amounts of public goods. But I would not think that a different skill set. What it would require would be different experience, sort of like the CV differences you would look for, when looking for a manager to run a bank and auto maker.

radcen said:

Are corporate CEO and President comparable management skills?

Yes? No? In between? Why, or why not?

Click to expand...

I think that answer is "It depends." It depends on the type of business that the CEO was running. I think in the sense that the President is the Chief Executive of the US government, yes. The skills of an experienced CEO of a very large multinational company would be a great fit. It is also fair to say that working with Congress is similar to working FOR a very large Board of Directors. Most major executive decisions must be approved by the Board of Directors of a company in much the same way that a President has to have the approval of Congress for almost everything. I think that in a functional corporation, though, the Board of Directors usually go along with the recommendation of the CEO, seeing as they hired him, trust him, and he works directly for them. That is a pretty big distinction. Congress can not hire and fire the President, which leads to disfunction (or non function) of both branches in the government, whereas within a company, the Board of Directors would just fire the CEO and replace him/her.

The role of the President as Commander in Chief is not conducive, particularly, to the skills of a CEO. While the strategic vision comes from the Joint Chiefs, a CEO is not used to making life or death decisions generally. I think this would be a challenge for a CEO minded person. The goals and objectives of military operations and combat are impossible to see on a balance sheet. You are spending tangible dollars for an intangible result. Generally.

On the other hand, the primary job of a CEO is to make hard, good decisions that further the objectives of the organization. I think that some of these important decisions, for the President, are the people you choose to advise you. With good cabinet choices, a CEO would generally make a great president- especially in this economy.

joG said:

That sounds grand. But in both cases they are a small group of people employed to optimize the regulation for factor allocation they use to produce the goods. Sure there will be differences between decisions to find the right price instead of the right trade-off between amounts of public goods. But I would not think that a different skill set. What it would require would be different experience, sort of like the CV differences you would look for, when looking for a manager to run a bank and auto maker.

Click to expand...

I think it's a much different skill set. It's not just different decisions, but different motivations, environments, workers, "customers", etc. There is, perhaps, some small overlap of skills; but on whole the demands and necessities between the two are wholly different. A great CEO is not a guarantee of being a good President, and vice-versa.

joG said:

I do realize that there are differences between public and private goods. I also realize that politicians' hold on power is based on opaque and fuzzier information. But this does not mean that you would want lousy people running government.

Click to expand...

I agree absolutely. What is supposed to make lawyers good leaders? Seems to be a disproportionate number in politics. As the old saw goes, "Courts are the home of justice, honor, truth, ethics, and straight shooting and what could lawyers and politicians do in such a hostile work environment (paraphased)." Does our current electoral system encourage a low life class of leadership? Both major parties equally! I know that deviousness and duplicity are commonplace in many Corporate boardrooms and how does that help the political end? Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear in the present context, eh?

DaveFagan said:

I agree absolutely. What is supposed to make lawyers good leaders? Seems to be a disproportionate number in politics. As the old saw goes, "Courts are the home of justice, honor, truth, ethics, and straight shooting and what could lawyers and politicians do in such a hostile work environment (paraphased)." Does our current electoral system encourage a low life class of leadership? Both major parties equally! I know that deviousness and duplicity are commonplace in many Corporate boardrooms and how does that help the political end? Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear in the present context, eh?

Click to expand...

Could it be something as simple as a person with a legal-type mind would just be more naturally drawn to creating laws and "managing" society, whereas a plumber or an auto mechanic would not?

Ikari said:

Umm...hell no. The goals and necessities of government are very different from business.

Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily mean that Presidents and CEOs don't require similar skills.

There's some overlap in skill sets when it comes to managing people and negotiating deals with other entities.

Other than that, not so much, and for the reasons stated earlier: the goals of corporations and governments are too different.

They have similar skill-sets, but vastly different goals. You can't run a gov't as a profitable business, but there are tools and techniques of running a profitable business that make for a much better President.

Not even close

A CEO is tasked with making money and turning a profit, the Prez is tasked with a whole lot of other things, but making money is not one of them. The "guvmint" could not make a 6 pack of beer for less than $800.

While the goals of government and corporations are different they are both large bureaucracies and as such require similar skills to lead.

faithful_servant said:

They have similar skill-sets, but vastly different goals. You can't run a gov't as a profitable business, but there are tools and techniques of running a profitable business that make for a much better President.

Click to expand...

I agree with this assessment. There are skills and knowledge that transfer, but there are some that do not.

Gaius46 said:

While the goals of government and corporations are different they are both large bureaucracies and as such require similar skills to lead.

Click to expand...

Yup. And further, CEOs do not lead by dictate, demand, and berating. They far more so lead by consensus and example, the same as in government. Why do you think it is that Obama has led so poorly? He's dictating, demanding, and berating, and he runs into resistance.

eohrnberger said:

I agree with this assessment. There are skills and knowledge that transfer, but there are some that do not.



Yup. And further, CEOs do not lead by dictate, demand, and berating. They far more so lead by consensus and example, the same as in government. Why do you think it is that Obama has led so poorly? He's dictating, demanding, and berating, and he runs into resistance.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Until I worked for big corporations and got a close look at how senior executive manage and even more so was put in a position where I was managing relatively large projects or being a line manager with a couple dozen staffers, I had the naive view that bosses said "jump" and everyone said "how high." Nothing could be further from the truth. Even when you control the money - as a line manager does through the review and raise process - you lead by making people understand why they're doing what you're asking them to do. You don't give orders.

Gaius46 said:

Exactly. Until I worked for big corporations and got a close look at how senior executive manage and even more so was put in a position where I was managing relatively large projects or being a line manager with a couple dozen staffers, I had the naive view that bosses said "jump" and everyone said "how high." Nothing could be further from the truth. Even when you control the money - as a line manager does through the review and raise process - you lead by making people understand why they're doing what you're asking them to do. You don't give orders.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, Steve Jobs would have disagreed.