102nd Edition
Public service and a moral compass
I’ve been thinking a lot about this question lately – Should Government be run like a business? Robert Rubin, who served as the U.S. Treasury Secretary from 1995-1999, addressed this question in an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Rubin had a successful career at Goldman Sachs before serving as the Treasury Secretary, so his thoughts on this question carried a significant degree of credibility. I found a few of his conclusions particularly interesting.
To begin with, Rubin sees three fundamental differences between private and public sector management. First, he believes that companies in the private sector all have the overreaching goal to maximize profitability over time. In contrast, the mission of government always involves competing factions, ideologies, goals and objectives, that all have some merit. In short, businesses aren’t faced with the same level of motivation to compromise across different constituencies to accomplish their primary goal. Effective government, Rubin contends, relies much more on a willingness to compromise. Let me come back to this later…
Second, Rubin contends that decision-making in the private sector is more centralized. In his view the CEO basically controls the company. Conversely, government has multiple participants who all have a voice and a role in how the process operates. The balance of power between the three branches of government, the influence of lobbyists, think tanks, staff members, and political action committees all make the management of government complicated. The party in power must find a way to motivate all these constituents to work together. Let me get back to this later as well…
Third, Rubin contends that government leaders face far more scrutiny than business leaders, particularly by the press and through social media. This forces politicians to spend substantial time on messaging. Making sure they say the right thing the right way, in order not to offend the wrong interest group, nor to create opportunities that their opponents can leverage for political gain. I basically agree with these specific points.
Rubin ends his essay by strongly recommending public service to anyone given the opportunity. I’ll comment on that at the end…
Back to his first fundamental difference. His point that the private sector’s mission is far simpler is rather narrow-minded. A company that becomes too focused on profit maximization and disregards relationship building won’t be successful in the long run. Building the right culture, reinforcing it in every way, every day, requires a multifaceted approach that sometimes requires sacrificing profitability goals. Moreover, building a positive culture requires having principles that will not be compromised. People will not commit to giving their very best effort on a sustained basis for a company that sacrifices its core values to enhance short-term profitability. This ethical challenge is never simple, it is always complicated, often gut-wrenching. As Rubin rightly points out, in government there are always a myriad of competing ideologies, interests and concerns. Compromise has to happen for anything to get done from a political perspective. While accepting that as a fact of how government is supposed to operate effectively, too much compromise can lead to confusion or even a willingness to forego essential principles and lower moral standards to maintain positions of power. Isn’t that the primary reason so many people are disgusted with politicians and politics in general? For some reason, Rubin chose not to mention anything along these lines.
Moreover, while Rubin makes the case that businesses all have a goal of strong profitability over time, he doesn’t expound upon the common thread that exists within the political arena. Starting at the highest level but permeating through the entire political system is a thirst for power, and with that comes all kinds of moral and ethical challenges. Consider this question – Would a talented and motivated person rather start a business, and operate it according to a moral code and vision for future success that one believes in whole-heartedly, or would that person prefer to enter politics, knowing that getting and staying elected might require sacrificing one’s personal moral code and ethical standards?
Or maybe think about it this way – If you are a highly ethically person, do you have more potential to be successful in business or in government? Or if you are a person without a moral compass, in which arena would you have a better chance to thrive?
None of these questions have simple answers, do they? Also, it probably doesn’t make sense to reflect on these questions from a dualistic perspective. Neither the private nor the public sector has a lock on questionable ethical behavior. Conversely, there are outstanding highly ethical and moral individuals in both the private and public sectors. Still, there is no denying that politicians in general place toward the bottom in any ranking of public trust. That isn’t a good thing.
Regarding his second fundamental difference, that decision-making in the private sector is more centralized, ever since the industrial revolution virtually all successful companies were led at some point by an extraordinary individual. A very small percentage of these people transitioned into the public sector. I have long contended that the best of the best in our country have zero interest in working in government. Sure there are exceptions, but they are rare. My point is simply this – Extraordinary people tend to gravitate to leadership roles in situations where they can be impactful, and where they can be in control of their own destiny. Opportunities such as these are way more prominent in the private sector than in government, with its ever-expanding bureaucracy.
Rubin ends with a pitch toward public service. I couldn’t agree more. We should all find ways to help others. If that means running for public office, then by all means do so. Just hold on tight to your moral compass and try to find ways to serve without becoming part of the proverbial swamp.
Please help me grow my readership by forwarding this to a friend(s). In the meantime, stay tuned for my next newsletter. Thanks
Michael Kayes
*These views are my personal opinions and are not the viewpoints of any company or organization.