I will also note that persons working in the private sector can also contribute their talents as non-profit sector as volunteers. It’s much harder the other way around, although not impossible.

First comment – need definition of ’strong’ and ‘amazing results’.

Second comment – goals of government are different than business. The goal of american business appears to be mostly concerned with making money (selling more or reducing costs). The goal of american government is about managing social and legal institutions – securing and improving the quality of life of our citizens.

The goals are often at conflict – think water quality, financial system transparency, military defense, public health.

Business owners are looking for ways to reduce costs, while government’s job is to protect the quality of life and rights of all those governed.

Leaders in our government need to be able to analyze and balance the nation’s survival and security with individual security and individual freedom to pursue happiness.

We need leaders that can understand the impacts, and weigh the short and longterm costs associated with making these very difficult decisions. The costs are often not monetary. I believe that this is the reason that thoughtfulness, understanding multiple perspectives, moral courage and unselfishness, knowing when and where to get information and resources you do not possess are crucial to the leader of our country. Budget balancing is a skill which many possess, good judgement concerning consequences of a decision for a nation are not so easily found. Our future leader needs to attract knowledgable, disparate thinking experts and leaders of other countries, and weigh the validity and consequences of following any advice they might give.

I believe this is part of what Glenn was implying.

That’s pretty funny.

I think that the CEO represents the ultimate in the Truman-esque ideology, “The buck stops here”.

We like strong leaders. Good CEOs remind us that a strong leader can produce amazing results. Hence, those seeking the ultimate executive position will want to mirror that image.

As for whether a CEO can be a moral leader, I agree that he or she can, but it seems that what the public admires about CEOs is their relative lack of thoughtfulness or moral qualms: the decisive leader, untrammeled by Congress or the courts, whose success is measured in dollars.

When I hear a governor described as the CEO of Alaska, I wonder if she wants to be measured in terms of people’s quality of life or by some more ruthless metric. And I wonder too how the public would react if a politician’s management style were described as imperial or monarchical rather than CEO-like? Is the CEO of Alaska just the Queen of Alaska, with term limits?

Please note, I am not taking a political position for McCain or for Obama here, just arguing against politicians wanting to be like CEOs, or even being judged as CEOs.

And while I agree that being a good CEO of HP requires an actual interest in what HP does, it also requires the ability to be a great manager, which is, I think, a transferable skill. So while the president is certainly a moral leader, he or she is also, very importantly, a day-to-day manager. Soaring rhetoric or tough talk ring hollow if you hire cronies who can’t manage the agencies that make up the government.

In other words, being able to be a good CEO may be necessary for being president, but not sufficient.

And on a somewhat less theoretical note, the next president arguably *will* be a CEO: of Fannie, Freddie, AIG, and whatever firms we bail out next week. It might behoove him or her to have a few CEO skills in his back pocket.

You’re saying that a life as a CEO — or any life except that of a politician — hardly prepares you to be a politician. I disagree insofar as I think people from other walks of life can succeed in politics, provided they understand the shift toward public accountability that politics entails. Bloomberg seems like a good example of this shift working out well for the citizens of New York.