McGentrix wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:You will note that I said nothing about the experience garnered from their terms in public office. In fact, I think that this is one of the strongest things that both of them have going for them. It is important to critically examine the actual record of the people in question; it isn't enough to have been a mayor or Gov., and say 'that = experience.' It doesn't, necessarily, though it is a good indicator of the ability to have gotten or shown experience.
I have consistently stated that their 'executive experience' cannot be derived simply from the fact that they run companies. If you follow back this conversational tack, you will see that this has been my point all along.
I agree with you that all candidates have their strengths and weaknesses; I don't believe Clinton's exhortations of experience any more then I do Romney's. And I think that it would make Obama a stronger candidate if he had more experience. But, he has far, far less negatives then any other candidate then McCain and many positives which the others lack.
Cycloptichorn
According to
wiki:
Quote:Business career
After graduation Romney went to work for the The Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.[16] From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another Boston-based management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a Bain & Company spin-off private equity investment firm called Bain Capital.[17] During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent,[18] making money primarily through leveraged buyouts.[19] He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and The Sports Authority.[20]
In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm's employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.[18]
Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.[21]
He and his wife have a net worth of between 190 and 250 million USD.[22]
CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee
Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis.[23] The Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.[24]
On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.[25] Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[26] Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million, not counting the $224.5 million in security costs contributed by outside sources.[27][28]
Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity.[29] He wrote a book about his experience called Turnaround (ISBN 978-1-59698-514-8).
Looks like a good deal of leadership in the business world. Again, return to the definition of leadership. Romney exemplifies what a good leader is. It's not all about money as you think it is, though a good businees leader will make money. Kind of the definition of success, but not leadership.
Would you agree that the CEO of a successful (profitable) company would have better leadership then the CEO of an unsuccessful company?
Romney leveraged his business success into a political one as Gov. of Mass. garnering him more, political, leadership opportunities.
But, if your point is simply that a business CEO does not equate to being President of the US, I don't see that anyone has argued that point so I wonder why it's a sticking point for you.
It's vague information - what, specifically, did he
do that made him an effective leader? It's quite difficult to judge the situation without any sort of information other then the overall behavior of the company while he was involved with it.
You ask,
Quote:
Would you agree that the CEO of a successful (profitable) company would have better leadership then the CEO of an unsuccessful company?
No, because individual variation in circumstance far outweigh such sweeping generalities. Without specific details, it is difficult to know if one is causing success, or success is occurring in spite of one's efforts.
I haven't worked in the Education realm all my life; I've worked for more then one successful company in which the 'leaders' either did nothing or actively harmed the efforts of those who were beneath them. I've no specific information that Romney is this kind of leader - but none of the reverse, either.
I don't believe money is the definition of success, unless your goal in life is to make lots and lots of money. And I also believe that leadership requires the ability to do what you consider to be the right thing, even if that choice doesn't lead to the maximum profitability for the group you represent in the short-run. You don't see much of that amongst business executives. I think the next presidential term will be as rocky as the last one, as we struggle as a nation to figure out a clearer course of action in respect to foreign relations. I believe that a rational and objective view of our situation is going to lead to a certain amount of re-adjustment of our behavior as a nation; in the short-term, this isn't going to be a fun thing. I haven't seen a lot of evidence that the CEO as leader has what it takes to take the long view, at the expense of profits for American companies and ambitions.
Cycloptichorn
