Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate for governor of California, recently gave an interview, where she said, “…[W]hat I want to convince voters of is I am the very best person to fix the economy in California… I am a businessperson. I am not actually a politician. I am a businessperson. I have created jobs, I have met budgets, I have done, figured out how to do more with less, and that is actually a really important thing for the state right now.”
With the nomination of Whitman, fellow Californian Carly Fiorina , and professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon on Connecticut to November’s ballot, it has to be asked whether the experience these businesswomen gained by running private companies provides them with experience to be a public sector leader. It seems it is assumed by the public at large that the experience a candidate gains by being an executive at a private or public for-profit company provides a candidate with the necessary experience to run a government. Are the outcomes that for-profit companies value the same outcomes that we want our public leaders to implement in our governments, whether it be local, state, or federal?
To look at this, we need to look at what the things that executives are rewarded for in the private sector. For-profit companies are, by definition, profit maximizing entities. Private companies, companies that are not publically traded, exist to maximize the return of that company’s owners and investors. Publically traded for-profit companies exist to maximize the return to their share holders. This return is gained through a company’s profit, the excess of the company’s revenue to its costs. Profit is collected in one of two ways, either by reducing the company’s costs or by increasing the revenue. Private companies gain revenue by providing various goods or services to the marketplace, and the market decides which products succeed or fail.
Public organizations, on the other hand, are governments and nonprofits. They exist to provide services for the common good. They provide services and support for those that cannot afford the services or services for the public good. They maintain roads, police our streets, and educate our children. They provide the common infrastructure that is needed for a market economy to exist, and they ensure that no established laws are broken.
The key differentiator is profit. For-profit executives are expected to do more with less and have a surplus left over, regardless of the public good. Public executives are not expected to generate a profit; they are expected to increase the quality of life of their constituents. For-profit executives have a limited number of stakeholders: either their owners or their shareholders. Public executives count every man, woman, and child as their stakeholders.
Candidates who claim to have the experience for a public sector job, whether they are running for mayor, legislator, governor, Congress, or president, because of their prior work at for-profit companies are really telling us that they know how to “control” spending and “give government back to the people.” Whatever this rhetoric means in practice, we need to be careful that they are not still working to provide profits to the stakeholders they served while running those for-profit companies. Serving the bottom line and serving human beings result in two very different outcomes. We need to be sure that our leaders are serving our best interest, not theirs.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Shared Infrastructure Development
While on a recent trip to Ireland, we saw the country by car. We started on the west coast and moved our way east, and the difference in road development between the eastern hub of Dublin and the western cities of Galway and Limerick is remarkable. Dublin is surrounded by multi-car expressways, while many of the roads in the west barely have enough room for two cars to pass each other (which led to many harrowing moments). The west is the part of the country that Oliver Cromwell famously sent the eastern Irish landowners when he confiscated the land on behalf of the English crown and told the Irish to go “to hell or to Connaught,” and, due to its isolation from the rest of the country, is the home of the Irish Gaelic language and culture. Notoriously, some of the roads are unpaved and were largely developed when people primarily used horses for travel.
But, throughout the west, there were signs of large scale infrastructure development, with many roads being built, all with prominent signs proudly attributing the development to the NDP or National Development Plan. For a country that has faced its own economic crisis over the last few years, this scope of investment surprised me, especially since Moody's recently downgraded Ireland's bond rating. It surprised me until I learned of how it was being financed. Approximately one third of the financing for the Irish National Development Plan comes from E.U. Structural Funds.
The E.U. Structural Funds are grants of financial assistance that strengthen “the EU's economic and social cohesion by reducing developmental disparities between its regions.” Essentially, if there are regions within the E.U. that need infrastructure investment to improve their roads so that they can compete economically, the E.U. provides that region with a grant to bring that region on par with the rest of Europe. They know that Europe's collective economy won't grow if the laggards in the economy did not have the ability to initially develop as the rest of Europe has.
Given the recent cascading impact of the Euro’s valuation, the Europeans know that areas that have relatively weaker economies as compared with the economic leaders of the continent (Germany, France, UK) can bring down the whole house. That is why this fund to develop remote areas of Europe in order to build the overall economy of the country needs to be replicated elsewhere.
In the U.S., President Eisenhower solved the issue of the roads back in the 1950s. But, some of these roads are in need of repair or upgrade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. a cumulative grade of D for the current condition of our infrastructure. They estimate that a five year investment of $2.2 trillion will be needed to upgrade our collective infrastructure.
If you focus on bridges alone, ASCE states on its website:
And there are still other areas of the country that need further road and rail development to continue to remain competitive in the current global economy. The key factor here is that the E.U. is helping its member countries modernize by providing direct grants for infrastructure development. We've pumped a lot of money into the economy in the last two years but, in the larger budgetary and deficit discussions, the growing and pressing need for further infrastructure development is not being discussed.
But, throughout the west, there were signs of large scale infrastructure development, with many roads being built, all with prominent signs proudly attributing the development to the NDP or National Development Plan. For a country that has faced its own economic crisis over the last few years, this scope of investment surprised me, especially since Moody's recently downgraded Ireland's bond rating. It surprised me until I learned of how it was being financed. Approximately one third of the financing for the Irish National Development Plan comes from E.U. Structural Funds.
The E.U. Structural Funds are grants of financial assistance that strengthen “the EU's economic and social cohesion by reducing developmental disparities between its regions.” Essentially, if there are regions within the E.U. that need infrastructure investment to improve their roads so that they can compete economically, the E.U. provides that region with a grant to bring that region on par with the rest of Europe. They know that Europe's collective economy won't grow if the laggards in the economy did not have the ability to initially develop as the rest of Europe has.
Given the recent cascading impact of the Euro’s valuation, the Europeans know that areas that have relatively weaker economies as compared with the economic leaders of the continent (Germany, France, UK) can bring down the whole house. That is why this fund to develop remote areas of Europe in order to build the overall economy of the country needs to be replicated elsewhere.
In the U.S., President Eisenhower solved the issue of the roads back in the 1950s. But, some of these roads are in need of repair or upgrade. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. a cumulative grade of D for the current condition of our infrastructure. They estimate that a five year investment of $2.2 trillion will be needed to upgrade our collective infrastructure.
If you focus on bridges alone, ASCE states on its website:
Simply maintaining the current overall level of bridge conditions—that is, not allowing the backlog of deficient bridges to grow—would require a combined investment from the public and private sectors of $650 billion over 50 years, according to AASHTO [the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials], for an average annual investment level of $13 billion. The cost of eliminating all existing bridge deficiencies as they arise over the next 50 years is estimated at $850 billion in 2006 dollars, equating to an average annual investment of $17 billion.
And there are still other areas of the country that need further road and rail development to continue to remain competitive in the current global economy. The key factor here is that the E.U. is helping its member countries modernize by providing direct grants for infrastructure development. We've pumped a lot of money into the economy in the last two years but, in the larger budgetary and deficit discussions, the growing and pressing need for further infrastructure development is not being discussed.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Unplugging
I recently got back from a trip to Ireland, and I had the most amazing experience. I unplugged. I didn’t unplug in the extreme sense, but, while there, I didn’t have a cell phone, e-mail, computer, or iPod. The rooms we stayed in at two B&Bs didn’t have televisions and I read only one newspaper the entire trip (which focused mostly on Irish topics). In fact, the only television I watched while on my trip was the U.S./England World Cup football, ne soccer, match at the pub. Having left all my electronic leashes behind, I spent some time reading a book (you know, those things made out of paper) instead of blogs and the internet, and found myself thinking more clearly.
Which is not to say that I don’t think clearly. However, given the dominating role the internet plays in our lives, I believe that more people than not find that their thinking or thought process can be improved. In his new book The Shallows, Nicholas Carr attributes the decline in our ability to concentrate to the growth of the internet as a primary source of information and reading . This lack of concentration is also seen in technology’s ability to help us multitask, and have us focus poorly on multiple tasks at one time rather than focusing well on one task at a time. A recent New York Times article focused on the role of technology in our life and its impact on our ability to think. As cited in the article, recent research has found that multitaskers suffer from fractured thinking and a lack of focus even when not multitasking. Carr has taken this idea one step further, likening our use of the internet to multitasking by reading a book while trying to do a crossword puzzle.
What does this all mean? With the ubiquity of technology and gadgets, our concentration is being pulled and taxed, hurting the quality of our thought and work. As a result, our ability to think strategically has suffered. Anecdotally, I know of many public sector leaders that have sacrificed their preference to address challenges strategically and comprehensively and now spend most of their time addressing issues tactically. To combat this, we need to force ourselves to unplug. Turn off the computer. Put down the blackberry. This can be hard when we’re in our comfort zone and routine, at home or at the office. To do the job well, we need to discipline ourselves not to always be working in our e-mail, and focus on the long-term projects on our plate.
Which is not to say that I don’t think clearly. However, given the dominating role the internet plays in our lives, I believe that more people than not find that their thinking or thought process can be improved. In his new book The Shallows, Nicholas Carr attributes the decline in our ability to concentrate to the growth of the internet as a primary source of information and reading . This lack of concentration is also seen in technology’s ability to help us multitask, and have us focus poorly on multiple tasks at one time rather than focusing well on one task at a time. A recent New York Times article focused on the role of technology in our life and its impact on our ability to think. As cited in the article, recent research has found that multitaskers suffer from fractured thinking and a lack of focus even when not multitasking. Carr has taken this idea one step further, likening our use of the internet to multitasking by reading a book while trying to do a crossword puzzle.
What does this all mean? With the ubiquity of technology and gadgets, our concentration is being pulled and taxed, hurting the quality of our thought and work. As a result, our ability to think strategically has suffered. Anecdotally, I know of many public sector leaders that have sacrificed their preference to address challenges strategically and comprehensively and now spend most of their time addressing issues tactically. To combat this, we need to force ourselves to unplug. Turn off the computer. Put down the blackberry. This can be hard when we’re in our comfort zone and routine, at home or at the office. To do the job well, we need to discipline ourselves not to always be working in our e-mail, and focus on the long-term projects on our plate.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Do we miss "Crossfire"?
Five years ago this month, CNN hosted its final “Crossfire” episode at George Washington University. For those of you that don’t remember, or have made the conscience decision to block it from your memory, this relatively popular show pitted two political pundits (one from the left and the other from the right) against each other in what CNN called “debate.”
For 23 years this show fell pathetically short of actual policy debate. It took a comedian, albeit a highly intelligent and informed one, to call out the final hosts – Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson – for this lack of substance.
There were many interesting and funny parts of “Crossfire,” but unfortunately this show (while providing great drama) missed an incredible opportunity to actually educate the public on the differences between the right and the left. Instead we tuned in to see Tucker Carlson “eat a shoe” when Hillary Clinton sold a million copies of her autobiography “Living History.” Again, entertaining, but hardly good for democracy.
We don’t necessarily miss this high drama (well, maybe some of us do), but many of us miss the potential benefit of bringing together experts from the left and the right to talk about the most pressing issues facing our country and the world. Imagine how much more civil our discourse could be if we left out the possibility of scoring political points. Imagine how much more effective our policy would be if we actually listened to each other before deciding on a course of action.
Although it would make for less marketable TV, America needs an honest discussion of policy issues from true experts, not political strategists. If these people are one in the same, fine; but let’s not pretend political expertise is the same as policy proficiency.
We need experts talking with experts with different opinions and views. As Americans, committed to creating a more perfect union, we must not only demand an honest debate of the issues, but then tune in if or when it happens.
For 23 years this show fell pathetically short of actual policy debate. It took a comedian, albeit a highly intelligent and informed one, to call out the final hosts – Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson – for this lack of substance.
There were many interesting and funny parts of “Crossfire,” but unfortunately this show (while providing great drama) missed an incredible opportunity to actually educate the public on the differences between the right and the left. Instead we tuned in to see Tucker Carlson “eat a shoe” when Hillary Clinton sold a million copies of her autobiography “Living History.” Again, entertaining, but hardly good for democracy.
We don’t necessarily miss this high drama (well, maybe some of us do), but many of us miss the potential benefit of bringing together experts from the left and the right to talk about the most pressing issues facing our country and the world. Imagine how much more civil our discourse could be if we left out the possibility of scoring political points. Imagine how much more effective our policy would be if we actually listened to each other before deciding on a course of action.
Although it would make for less marketable TV, America needs an honest discussion of policy issues from true experts, not political strategists. If these people are one in the same, fine; but let’s not pretend political expertise is the same as policy proficiency.
We need experts talking with experts with different opinions and views. As Americans, committed to creating a more perfect union, we must not only demand an honest debate of the issues, but then tune in if or when it happens.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Constructive Criticism or Insubordination?
President Obama recently removed Gen. Stanley McChrystal from his post as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan because ofdue to remarks he and he staff made about members of the Obama administration in a recent Rolling Stone feature. In the article, McChrystal and members of his staff made frank remarks of other members of the U.S. diplomatic team, including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones; the Vice President; and members of Congress. Much of the vitriol in their comments focus on how the various players involved in creating a lasting democracy in Afghanistan, at times, work against the interests of McChrystal’s Counter Insurgency (COIN) strategy.
While frank and at times disrespectful, I don’t find anything wrong with these public leaders expressing their opinions about their job, their colleagues, or the strategy they, and others, are implementing. I do have issue with the venue. Whether due to the masculine bravado that comes from being in the military or a larger sense of self-importance that may come from talking with a journalist from the music industry’s news source of record, I think McChrystal and his staff were a bit too frank with a journalist.
Then again, it may have been intentional. Their frustration with the success and criticism of COIN may have led them to be more direct in their criticism than normal. The challenge with the current situation in Afghanistan is the political politicians need to show results for a strategy in a public climate that demands immediate results. One of the key points communicated in the article is the importance of long-term and patient engagement with COIN. With a rise in violence and U.S. casualties in recent months, the political leaders and press have been critical of how effective the strategy is. However, long-term success in Afghanistan relies on committed patience to the implement the strategy rather than changing course when you don’t like short-term results. That criticism, combined with outright disagreement with the strategy by Eikenberry and Holbrooke, may have created an environment of frustration by McChrystal and his staff. I’m not a military strategist, so I can’t comment on whether COIN is the “right” strategy for Afghanistan. However, the President endorsed and committed to this strategy in December, and he has re-endorsed the strategy. As a result, all members of his leadership team need to help it succeed.
President Obama has worked to create a “no drama” White House, and this incident with McChrystal has created a fair amount of drama. But, this drama may have been made self-inflicted. The “Team of Rivals” approach to management provides a good approach in considering options. But when a strategy has been committed to, that the “Team of Rivals” must work together to make it happen.
While frank and at times disrespectful, I don’t find anything wrong with these public leaders expressing their opinions about their job, their colleagues, or the strategy they, and others, are implementing. I do have issue with the venue. Whether due to the masculine bravado that comes from being in the military or a larger sense of self-importance that may come from talking with a journalist from the music industry’s news source of record, I think McChrystal and his staff were a bit too frank with a journalist.
Then again, it may have been intentional. Their frustration with the success and criticism of COIN may have led them to be more direct in their criticism than normal. The challenge with the current situation in Afghanistan is the political politicians need to show results for a strategy in a public climate that demands immediate results. One of the key points communicated in the article is the importance of long-term and patient engagement with COIN. With a rise in violence and U.S. casualties in recent months, the political leaders and press have been critical of how effective the strategy is. However, long-term success in Afghanistan relies on committed patience to the implement the strategy rather than changing course when you don’t like short-term results. That criticism, combined with outright disagreement with the strategy by Eikenberry and Holbrooke, may have created an environment of frustration by McChrystal and his staff. I’m not a military strategist, so I can’t comment on whether COIN is the “right” strategy for Afghanistan. However, the President endorsed and committed to this strategy in December, and he has re-endorsed the strategy. As a result, all members of his leadership team need to help it succeed.
President Obama has worked to create a “no drama” White House, and this incident with McChrystal has created a fair amount of drama. But, this drama may have been made self-inflicted. The “Team of Rivals” approach to management provides a good approach in considering options. But when a strategy has been committed to, that the “Team of Rivals” must work together to make it happen.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Is Utah the New Standard?
A few weeks ago, three-term Utah Senator Bob Bennett was denied the opportunity to hold his party’s banner in the 2010 general election, which he would have undoubtedly carried to his fourth term in the upper chamber. Okay, fair enough. The GOP in Utah grew tired of his representation of them and, after 18 years, wanted change. That is understandable and it is democracy (other than the fact that the vote was only open to the people that participated in the convention).
But now, Utah’s senior Senator, Mr. Hatch is on the hot seat; popular Congressman Chaffetz is contemplating a run against him in the 2012 GOP primary. Although Senator Hatch is a consistent conservative, he is being watched closely by the new tea party activists in his state, who are apparently worried he might actually give Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a fair hearing. This assumption is based on the fact that Senator Hatch was one of only seven Republicans to vote for her when she was the nominee for Solicitor General last year.
There are also many Utah Republicans who point to his record of working across the aisle as a sign of his betrayal – specifically his work and friendship with the late Ted Kennedy. As the argument goes, if he is working with ultraliberal Ted Kennedy, he cannot be representing ultraconservative Utah. Conversely, Utah conservatives are sure they can trust Rep. Chaffetz to never do something as daring and reprehensible as working with the other side. It’s simply not his style.
Elected in 1976, Hatch shares the honor of the longest serving Republican with Senator Lugar. In a democratic body that places heavy emphasis on seniority, this is a big deal, especially for the people he represents. Given his seniority, he can have his pick of just about any committee he wants to chair when his party comes back into power, which will enable him to deliver services that a freshman member simply can’t. That alone should be enough to overlook the “betrayal” of working with the other side one percent of the time. But it isn’t.
To be clear, the Utah Republicans are not the only group that has kicked an incumbent out of office for disagreeing with his/her party (see the Democrats in Connecticut circa 2006). Selecting a Congressman or Senator should be celebrated, regardless of who it is, because the simple act of declaring your preference is an important practice in democracy, and American democracy has been the envy of the world for centuries. However, if we want to retain this envy and enjoy having other countries look up to us, we need to encourage, not punish, elected officials that put policy and collaboration ahead of politics and polarization.
We need less partisanship and less polarization, not more. We need more honest and fair deliberation, not less. Let’s hope Utah’s recent behavior is the exception, not the new rule.
But now, Utah’s senior Senator, Mr. Hatch is on the hot seat; popular Congressman Chaffetz is contemplating a run against him in the 2012 GOP primary. Although Senator Hatch is a consistent conservative, he is being watched closely by the new tea party activists in his state, who are apparently worried he might actually give Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a fair hearing. This assumption is based on the fact that Senator Hatch was one of only seven Republicans to vote for her when she was the nominee for Solicitor General last year.
There are also many Utah Republicans who point to his record of working across the aisle as a sign of his betrayal – specifically his work and friendship with the late Ted Kennedy. As the argument goes, if he is working with ultraliberal Ted Kennedy, he cannot be representing ultraconservative Utah. Conversely, Utah conservatives are sure they can trust Rep. Chaffetz to never do something as daring and reprehensible as working with the other side. It’s simply not his style.
Elected in 1976, Hatch shares the honor of the longest serving Republican with Senator Lugar. In a democratic body that places heavy emphasis on seniority, this is a big deal, especially for the people he represents. Given his seniority, he can have his pick of just about any committee he wants to chair when his party comes back into power, which will enable him to deliver services that a freshman member simply can’t. That alone should be enough to overlook the “betrayal” of working with the other side one percent of the time. But it isn’t.
To be clear, the Utah Republicans are not the only group that has kicked an incumbent out of office for disagreeing with his/her party (see the Democrats in Connecticut circa 2006). Selecting a Congressman or Senator should be celebrated, regardless of who it is, because the simple act of declaring your preference is an important practice in democracy, and American democracy has been the envy of the world for centuries. However, if we want to retain this envy and enjoy having other countries look up to us, we need to encourage, not punish, elected officials that put policy and collaboration ahead of politics and polarization.
We need less partisanship and less polarization, not more. We need more honest and fair deliberation, not less. Let’s hope Utah’s recent behavior is the exception, not the new rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)