The idea that a maintenance technician, let alone a tech entrepreneur, would be the ideal person to get a country back on track is nothing new, but it is an idea that is gaining traction, and some countries have already taken action, such as the United States with Musk, although it cannot be said that this has been a resounding success.
But should we use this failure as a basis for generalizing?
In short:
- The idea that entrepreneurs, particularly in the tech sector, could run a country comes up regularly, but their skills are not necessarily transferable to politics.
- The state and business share certain similarities (budget, services, employees), but their operating logic and objectives are fundamentally different.
- Business leaders operate in a competitive environment with motivated employees and targeted customers, while politicians must govern for all citizens, including those who did not support them.
- Political power is limited by institutional, administrative, and democratic countervailing forces, which severely constrain the actions of entrepreneurs who become politicians.
- An entrepreneur can bring new ideas to politics, but their management methods must be adapted to an institutional and democratic framework that aims for the common good rather than individual interests.
Is government a business like any other?
That, at least, is what one school of thought claims. After all, there is a budget, services to be delivered, employees to do the work, and if there is one area where we know how to optimize the ratio between operating expenses and value created for stakeholders, it is business. This is fortunate, because that is precisely what many modern states are criticized for.
From there, it’s only a short step to saying that after the nation of startups, we need to move on to the startup nation, with the agility, efficiency, and flexibility that go with it, and some people are happily taking that step.
Is politics made for entrepreneurs?
I was talking about this recently with a friend who is a serial entrepreneur and who, like many others, would welcome someone like Xavier Niel entering politics in the run-up to the next presidential election.
This led us to talk about the motivations of an entrepreneur. Contrary to popular belief, he confirmed that the driving force behind an entrepreneur is not money, which is only a consequence of their success. What motivates them is more about recognition.
I replied that in either case, he had nothing to gain: being president is a very poorly paid job given the responsibilities involved, and all you get in return is criticism, dirty tricks, and a general feeling of contempt and animosity.
Having friends who are or have been in the business world, I have come to believe that, contrary to what many people think, the business world is not the worst arena, unlike politics, where anything goes and where all you reap is ingratitude.
I cannot shake the idea that if entrepreneurship is an ambition, politics is a vocation.
Lead for the few, govern for all
But even if an entrepreneur were crazy enough to throw himself into the political arena, even if he were elected, would the methods that made him successful in the business world also be effective at the head of a state?
I asked myself this question about Musk (Elon Musk Minister of Government Efficiency: a joke more serious than it seems) with some doubts, but I told myself that we should give it a chance. My doubts were confirmed, and if, with full powers, a shock method and enormous focus, Musk failed completely, this clearly shows the limits of the idea.
But rather than simply saying that it can’t work, we need to ask ourselves why.
Ultimately, the job of a business leader, while not simple, is nevertheless very clear. He faces competition and an external environment that can be favorable or unfavorable, he tries to satisfy as many customers as possible while knowing that he will never have 100% of the market, and to do so, he relies on employees who have decided to work for him. And these two points deserve our attention.
Yes, there will be customers who don’t like his business and his products, and yes, he will never have 100% of the market, but those who prefer the competition’s products are not going to protest against him, sabotage his factories, or burn down his stores. Customers who are not for him are not against him, they are simply indifferent or would like to be customers but cannot afford to be.
As for the employees, they are there to carry out his project and work in the interests of the company. Of course, some are more engaged and motivated than others, but ultimately this is a question of management and recruitment and does not change the general idea. And if they shoot themselves in the foot, they will eventually be asked to go and work elsewhere.
A business leader manages employees who have chosen to work for him to serve customers. It’s ultimately quite selective.
For politicians, it’s completely different.
They are elected by 50.52% or 55% of the people in the best case scenario, but once elected, they must work for 100% of the voters. They must think about and satisfy, to a certain extent, not only their “customers” but also those of others who do not benefit them in any way.
This is why they reap only ingratitude. Elected on a program, they disappoint those who voted for them because they cannot implement it fully, as they must consider those who did not vote for them but remain citizens whom they must serve, and those voters will be disappointed anyway because no matter what they do, they will never be able to change their policies enough to satisfy them. Unlike in the business world, in politics, the winner must take care of the losers as much as his own supporters.
As for employees, once in power, politicians discover that they do not have as much power as they think. They must make concessions to the opposition, satisfy constitutional principles, and deal with an administration that can show real ill will in slowing down or even preventing the implementation of their policies. The Deep State is not a myth, as Musk has learned to his cost.
Politicians are therefore not omnipotent, and entrepreneurs who rise to the highest office will learn that just because they want something to happen, it doesn’t mean it will, and just because they decide something will happen, it doesn’t mean it will.
A country is not a business
It may be nice to think that the principles of business operation and management could be applied to a state, but we must also admit that the principles of operation and exercise of power are completely different (Do enterprise innovation methods work in the public sector? Or: can governments be reformed?).
Therefore, it is completely unrealistic to believe that someone who has been successful in business has demonstrated the qualities that will enable them to reform a state, because the methods are not transferable. And if they use methods that are acceptable in the context of a democratic state, they may indeed be able to change things through their vision and ideas, but only marginally.
Bottom line
I’m not saying that an entrepreneur wouldn’t make a good president, but believing that the methods that made them successful can be transferred would be a mistake because the context in which they operate is radically different.
In substance, they could bring new ideas and knowledge of the business world and the economy, but in form, they would have to shelve their entrepreneurial methods to comply with the written and unwritten rules of politics and the functioning of a state, which is a real limitation in terms of effectiveness.
All this may be because state constitutions were written precisely to prevent them from functioning like a business, because seeking the common good and the good of a few are not the same thing.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
