Whether public office is like the business executive suite

Dear Bob …

I think your metaphor comparing the power players in business with those in government is interesting but of only limited use (“Of special interest,” Keep the Joint Running, 9/15/2008).

Its main shortcoming is that corporations have a purported objective of maximizing profit for the owners (but too often autocratic executives take advantage of the situation to line their own pockets). Our government leaders theoretically are responsible to the public who elects them, and the government sets policies to carry out its mission and insure justice according to the constitution.

But lining the pockets of governmental leaders and their collaborators also occurs in our “democracy,” but that is hardly the role which is envisioned by our founders and great American statesmen.

I think class warfare is a much more appropriate metaphor of what happens in our country. (Oh, I know, that term is so preposterous as to not even be mentioned). On one side is the complex of big business, media owners, the military, war profiteers, rich folks and puppets they manipulate into office. On the other side is the rest of us.

Policies are set by the government leaders to benefit the elites, and to allow exploitation of the rest. A conspiracy is not needed, just a system that operates according to the rules and all are expected to know their place in the society and follow the rules.

And if the exploitees protest the rules, they are fought by the elites’ attacks and strategies — for examples, arresting protesters, denying Constitutional civil rights, issuing propaganda, telling or emphasizing only the elite side of a story, denying coverage or access to the media, etc.

– Jerrym

Dear Jerrym …

Corporations have a different purpose than government — true enough. Their boards of directors, acting (at least theoretically) on behalf of shareholders, hire the top executive to run the corporation well. Shareholders get to vote on board candidates — that’s their total influence.

In government, citizens (government’s owners, equivalent to shareholders) get to vote on the top executive directly. So in effect, we voters take on the role directly that the board of directors takes on in a corporation.

Some of the characteristics you’d want to see in a corporate top executive are similar to the ones you’d want to see in the POTUS. These are the ones I included in my column. Other characteristics are quite different (for example: you’d probably want a strong sense of competition and desire to win in a CEO; that doesn’t even mean anything for the POTUS).

The whole class warfare issue isn’t really relevant to the discussion. Whether it’s called class warfare or something different, it’s clear that income defines four major constituencies in this country – those who:

• Make most of their income from the investment economy.

• Achieve comfort or affluence through the labor economy.

• Make enough to get by from the labor economy, with little to spare.

• Are marginally employable or unemployable.

These four “classes” have very different motivations and interests. Interestingly, the story of the past century or so has been a shifting balance between the power of the first and third group — those who own and run corporations, on the one hand, and unionized workers on the other.

The second group — those who achieve affluence through labor — achieves some level of influence, mostly because its individual members are willing to ignore or cross party lines. This makes them swing voters, and as such, disproportionately influential.

The last group’s influence has been limited to its members’ willingness to engage in mass protests or violence. The first three groups pay just enough in taxes to keep them pacified.

That’s my read, at least.

Class warfare? I don’t know about warfare. Call it a power struggle. What else would you expect from four constituencies with such different interests?

– Bob

PS: In case you’re wondering what this has to do with IT management, the answer is, not all that much. Except … anyone who aspires to success in a management career had better become adept at analyzing who the major constituencies are in the companies they work in, and to recognize and influence the shifting alliances that make corporate politics work.

In this, observing the national scene can be instructive, just like watching a chess game played between two grandmasters can improve your own game.