Before you vote for anyone this election, try hiring someone. Think of the candidates as job applicants for leadership in your own company.
Government isn’t a business. Businesses pursue profits; government serves the public under legal constraints, competing obligations and democratic accountability. But both require people who can get things done.
In California, we’re bedeviled by politicians and their appointees who apparently can’t get much of anything done other than to bloat bureaucracy and spin out red tape. From the prolonged struggle to deliver high-speed rail to homelessness spending that leaves us wondering where the results are, and even to much-needed state water projects that no party can get off the ground, we can’t seem to get enough seasoned, hard-nosed leaders who know how to finish what they start.
Here’s the part we don’t like to hear: We hired them. Again and again. Sometimes with devastating consequences.
Getting things done ought to be a first priority when spending our votes. If you were hiring for leadership in your own company, who would you choose to actually get the stuff done that our society so desperately needs?
Not just words. Not just culture war stuff. Real, honest-to-God results.
I’ve run a large-ish business for most of my life. I’ve hired thousands. Fired hundreds, too. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve suffered technically skilled leaders who undercut subordinates to the point of tears. I’ve tolerated field leaders who hired family and friends only to see better talent go to work for our competitors. Over the years, I’ve seen some common traits and flaws:
The apparently perfect candidate who says all the right things, with all the best credentials, but somehow just can’t deliver the goods. Words, it turns out, aren’t results.
The go-getter who truly knows his or her stuff but can’t hold a team together. Everything revolves around their own brilliance, and eventually the people needed to accomplish anything head for the exits.
The nepotist. We see this in politics, but it exists in business also. Preferential hiring of relatives, friends and loyal hangers-on shrinks the pool of talent an organization needs to succeed. Family and friends before competence is a recipe for mediocrity.
And worst of all, the saboteur. It’s hard to explain the motivations, but plenty of employers have encountered one. Once in place, this leader gossips, spreads rumors, undermines others to inflate their own importance, or creates havoc because that’s what comes naturally. Think arsonist with an office.
These are the bad hires. We ought to watch for the same traits on our ballots. You likely can’t interview most candidates, but their records do the interviewing for you. The all-talk candidate shows up in the gap between campaign promises and results delivered. The nepotist shows up in who got appointed last time. The saboteur leaves a trail of former colleagues who won’t work with them again.
The cost is bad public policy, wasted taxpayer funds and public problems left to grow worse.
So here’s the real test. Look down your ballot. If the most capable candidate in a race wears the other team’s jersey, will you hire them?
Be honest. Most of us won’t. We’ll take our own side’s mediocrity over the other side’s competence and call it principle.
Then we’ll complain about results we hired.
No smart business hires on the basis of political party, nor should we vote that way. We’re hiring people, not parties.
The good candidates deserve just as much scrutiny. They prepare. They listen. They hire capable people and give them room to perform. When something goes wrong, they tell you what happened and what they’re doing to fix it. They share credit and accept responsibility.
What has this person actually accomplished? What formal education or real-life experience provides the required chops? How does the person handle responsibility, adversity and disagreement?
Can the candidate work with folks of different backgrounds and persuasions, or is he or she a zealot for whatever divides us? Has the person demonstrated that public responsibilities come before private advantage? Can the candidate rally a team and create the enthusiasm required to execute policy? Is there a record of taking good care of the money entrusted to them?
Empty suits we have plenty. Slogans abound ad nauseam. Show me a man or woman who has labored diligently and effectively with others in business, volunteer work or government, and we have something useful to judge.
Show me a showman or a showoff with little to show for the performance, and it’s likely time to move along down the ballot. Show me someone whose chief qualification is a connection to someone powerful, and the answer’s the same. Show me a party hack, and I’ll show you a follower, not a leader.
From water boards to high public office, look for solid records of solid accomplishments. Beware the goobers counting on party loyalty to slip past discerning voters.
Pretend you’re the boss. Because you are. These candidates are asking you for a job, and you’ll be paying their salaries.
Who has earned your confidence that they can actually do the work they’ll be paid for? And if the answer wears the other jersey, are you willing to hire them?
Gary Horton is chairman of the College of the Canyons Foundation board. His “Full Speed to Port!” has appeared in The Signal since 2006. The opinions expressed in his column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Signal or its editorial board.
