Every once in a while, someone says, “Government ought to be run like a business.” If Donald Trump were to be elected president, this wish may come true. So, what would “a government run like a business” look like?
First, every decision would tend to be framed as a transaction: What are we giving and what are we getting? Most of these transactions would also be thought of in financial terms: Who is the buyer and who is the seller? If we are the buyer, what are we getting for our money? If we are the seller, what is our cost and what is our price? Of course, the question of value pervades all such decisions. What is the purchase worth to us? What is the price? Is the price worth the purchase? Can we afford this purchase?
Business is essentially and universally a transactional enterprise. There are seller transactions, as when the company sells to a customer, and there are also buyer transactions as when the company buys supplies and services; transactions which allow the company and its employees to work together, and transactions when teams are formed and functioning — to cite a few examples. Thus the better the company is in negotiating the myriad of transactions required for success, the more successful the business will become. In this respect, Mr. Trump’s success in building a large international company demonstrates that he has mastered The Art of the Deal.
This mind-set would be applied to legislation. The business culture would view executive branch initiatives from the viewpoint of a salesman. The salesman’s job is to negotiate a deal in which his company gets as much as possible of what it wants while leaving the other side as happy as possible, so that the salesman is welcome the next time they meet. Administration representatives would be seen as salesmen to the Congress and the public, with part of a successful outcome seen as everybody getting enough of what they want to go away with bragging rights. This sets the stage for happy customers.
Much the same mentality would also obtain in foreign affairs. The major difference here is the presence of a massive leverage in the form of military force. Yet any business person knows that negotiation is far more desirable than war, so making customers rather than enemies is the desired outcome. The use of force does, however, sometimes become necessary. In those cases, there must be clarity of purpose, a drive to win, and the discipline to stop when the purpose is achieved.
A very important dynamic in the business world is competition. Every business wants first to protect its market, then to grow its market share; and every company knows that all its competitors want the same results. This leads to a dramatic race to continually improve every aspect of the business — product innovation, more effective marketing, better technology, more efficient management, greater productivity, and more. Competition is an imbedded discipline in the American business culture. In government, the competitive juices should flow by trying to exceed expectations — in balancing budgets, reducing both the nominal deficit and the unfounded liabilities, reducing regulations, and increasing military readiness, to mention a few of Mr. Trump’s goals.
Another factor which competition forces upon a successful company is accountability. If something is wrong, it is vital to know what and who is responsible in order to fix or at least understand it. Likewise, if something goes well, it is vital to know why and who made it happen and how to replicate it. Accountability, like everything else, is measured in numbers. Business people speak in numbers — percentages, units, properties, headcounts, market shares, stock prices, and nearly everything else. A popular mantra these days is, “If you can’t count it, you can’t manage it!” And counting is how you keep score, whether in healing or fighting, winning or losing.
Thus, the business-led government would place supreme emphasis on Inspectors General, ombudsmen, and state-of-the-art-technology. Hiding errors and corruption and dereliction of duty would become far more difficult than is now customary. The Office of Management and Budget could be expected to become a major force in a business-led government as the reorganization of government functions becomes a pressing objective, and labor relations with public employee unions could be expected to be brought into the 21st century.
In budgeting, the bureaucracy would be expected to assist rather than hinder Speaker Paul Ryan’s return to “regular order” in the House budgeting process. As spotlighted by another business candidate, Carly Fiorina, only this kind of line item scrutiny can set the stage for a balanced budget which also reduces the $20 trillion overhang and begins to attack the government’s $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Like most CEO’s, Mr. Trump talks in terms of goals, not procedures. This illustrates a major difference from the political world. The CEO sets the goals (which have a strategic rationale), then recruits the staff he judges best equipped to achieve the goals. These experts develop the plan for implementing each goal and present it to the CEO. Their dialog continues until the CEO agrees and puts his power and prestige behind the plan. If it does not work, he realizes harm may be done and he will be blamed. Like any good negotiator, he does not reveal his plans in advance. In fact his public statements may suggest a position which is far more extreme than he intends to settle for.
The press and pundits continually criticize Mr. Trump for not revealing the details of his policy goals. Frequently, he is accused of not even knowing the details. Frankly, he may not know how a certain goal would best be implemented. But he does not see that as his role. He is running to become the CEO of the United States of America. In that position, he will have access to the best talent in the entire country. His first job then would be to sell them on the idea of helping his cause. His final job would be to make sure they succeed.
Another characteristic of the business perspective which derives from the transactional nature of the enterprise is a benevolent view of people. Henry Ford was the first to popularize the idea that his employees could also become his customers. In fact, to today’s successful businessman, everyone he meets is a potential customer. This necessity for optimism and consideration of individuals, groups and strangers offsets in a way the stark financial discipline which is required. These are two very powerful counterweights in every business – and in every government body.
These are some of the effects which could be expected if government were truly run by a business-oriented leadership. If Mr. Trump wins the presidency, we may find out whether that is really a good idea or not.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.