I mean…they don’t call the President the Commander in Chief (CIC) for nothing!

With the election of Donald Trump, leadership qualities have been coming to the forefront. America has our first CEO at the helm of the country. #UnifyUsNow also happens to have a leadership effectiveness practitioner on our board. So – putting on the leadership development and change practitioner hat – politics aside, left or right or red or blue, this idea raises an interesting question.

Just because someone is a CEO does that mean they have the leadership skills to be Commander in Chief (CIC)?

Some may argue that good leadership is good leadership – whether you’re managing kids at home, running a small business, managing a group of people, serving as the CEO of a company, or as the Commander in Chief of a nation. Some may argue that leadership is entirely different depending on your role.

Can CEOs run the U.S. equally or better than an elected official with a traditional political background?  The reality is, that though many leadership roles do require similar traits, they may also require different decision making processes and application of those skills and traits. Just because you may have certain skills and traits to be a success in one leadership role doesn’t necessarily mean you have the skills and traits to be successful in another.  Even if you do – can you execute actions using those skills and traits in a way that will contribute to success in two different roles?

“…. 56% (of CEOs surveyed) also believe maintaining voter confidence is more difficult than securing the support of shareholders and directors as CEO.”

– Korn/Ferry CEO Survey 

Let’s take a look at some key leadership traits, and considerations, from the perspectives of CEO and the Commander in Chief:

 

Accountability

  • CEO – CEO’s and the CIC often have a different view on accountability. Though CEOs are hired, they are not often elected to serve the people, but to serve the shareholders. Since CEO’s are mostly accountable to boards and shareholders, decisions can often be driven by money, and not what is in the best interests of those they lead. Though, many could say the same for politicians these days. A CEO is often more accountable for balance sheets than the welfare of their employees. This can often prohibit them from putting the interests of their people or voters ahead of that of finances.
  • CIC – Though the balancing of financial matters and people matters is a shared struggle to an extent – the CIC is elected by all the people, not just appointed by a select group of peers – and thus is accountable first and foremost for the well-being of those who elected them.  One could debate that level of accountability includes a commitment to balance sheets, though, when looking at financials, the CIC is most often doing so from the perspective of what is best for the people – or at least should be.  In addition, the CIC is required to make life and death decisions, not just financial decisions. The CIC is accountable to serve the people who elected him/her, and not shareholders, in financial matters and matters of life and death. Most CEOs are not.

 

Transparency

  • CEO – CEO’s don’t often see a need for transparency. They very rarely share personal information – which they may not want to share publicly. We are seeing this in the Whitehouse currently. The job of a CEO doesn’t require corporate citizenship or social responsibility in leadership. Although these things are a bonus for success. Though more CEOs are making the choice to be socially responsible – it is not a mandate of the job.  Besides very specific legal mandates and policies – nothing requires that a CEO be transparent (though those that are not will most likely see a negative  impact on performance.) The CEO’s leadership often tends to be extremely secretive as CEOs often think personal information is not in the domain of those they lead.
  • CIC – The successful CIC knows that not even the most intimate moments are off limits. It comes with the job. The CIC is required to think through decisions, beyond profit and loss statements, and to consider all available points of view and impacts to all voters not just a select group. When communicating their decisions, the CIC is often required by law to do so in a transparent manner. Of course politics is politics, scandals are scandals. Not every CIC chooses to be or can be transparent about every decision -whether personal or legislative – however, the expectation of transparency tends to be more prominent from the successful CIC perspective based on the expectation from constituents. The general public, as often supported by law, can demand much more transparency from the CIC than employees can from a CEO. And, they should.

 

Engagement

  • CEO – Engaging in authentic communication is an imperative trait for any great leader if they wish to have supportive and trusting followers. Though it is important for a CEO to be a tough, no-nonsense, competent negotiator, it is also easy for a CEO to take a ‘my way or the highway’ view. This view will often alienate followers, not engage their support. If someone doesn’t like what the CEO is saying, then as the head honcho, it’s often too bad. CEOs don’t often invite disagreement. They can feel little need to explain or justify their thoughts and decisions and this view can often negatively impact followership engagement.
  • CIC – Can the CIC also take a ‘my way or the highway’ view to communication and decision making?  Sure they can.  However, they will often get little accomplished in doing so (particularly reelection). It is often the support of the voters and constituency that helps the CIC drive their agenda through the legislative process. The CIC needs to take a different view on engagement if they intend to govern in the best interest of the people. Which is the job they were elected to perform. This view not only includes being a competent negotiator, it also includes a certain level of diplomacy and the ability to engage with those they serve to gather varying opinions and information in a respectful manner and adjust decisions accordingly. These are skills many CEOs don’t often choose to exercise as they often see no need.

Now to be clear, this doesn’t mean that it’s not possible that leaders of corporations can make good leaders of government and vice versa. And this also doesn’t mean that all CEOs and all CICs are the same.  However, they tend to look at things a bit differently, thus even if sharing the same skill set, they often take different actions motivated by those different views and experiences and motives.

Though, regardless a reference our current CIC made to leading in government versus leading in business does raise an eyebrow.

Referring to leading government he says, “Here, everything, pretty much everything you do in government, involves heart, whereas, in business, most things don’t involve heart. In fact, in business you’re actually better off without it.” Many of the most successful business leaders practice mindfulness and lead with a certain degree of empathy and compassion. I mean, even Pope Francis does, and he leads a faith and a government.

It’s less about the debate of having the skills (assuming one does) and more about the ability to apply them in a given situation. Thus, being a good leader at one job is not necessarily synonymous with being a good leader at the other.

Leadership ability is often the deciding factor as to whether something succeeds or doesn’t – in business and in politics. Whether you’re debating who to support, who to vote for or who to work for – take a hard look at their leadership skills as related to their work, and ask yourself – do they have the skills to succeed in this role?  Am I ready to follow their lead?

NOTE: This article is not intended to endorse specific elected officials. It is simply to raise the question of leadership qualities, and if in fact, they translate from one position to another.