Despite all the hand-wringing, America remains the world’s largest and most dominant economic and military power—and, as a result, the nation’s president remains arguably the most powerful person on the planet.

Not surprisingly, given its size and scope, the American government can also be an enormous, unwieldy entity; divided into three equal branches—Executive (the President & his cabinet), Legislative, and Judicial—the U.S. government also has a massive budget that is unparalleled by even the largest companies in the world.

For example: In 2014, the U.S. federal government spent an eye-popping $3.8trillion!

In addition to that massive fiscal responsibility, as Commander-in-Chief of the American military, the President also has to provide leadership to a world awash in political and military instability and upheaval. It could even be argued that, given recent world events, not since the days of the last World War has the American president faced as many challenges, both at home and abroad.

So any way you choose to look at it, being President of the United States is, as musicians are wont to say, “a tough gig.”

With a presidential election now just over a year away, both major political parties are in the process of selecting their respective nominees.

Interestingly, despite their ideological differences, one thing both parties share as we enter yet another presidential election cycle is the seemingly perpetual question: what leadership qualities are required for a successful presidential nominee and—ultimately—our next president?

Many American voters—of all political stripes—have expressed a desire to consider a political ‘outsider’ as their next president, particularly one with hands-on experience “running” a large organization; the thought behind this idea is that the same qualities that make for a successful business leader could—theoretically—transfer to the political world, and therein better prepare the next president for the seemingly endless financial and geopolitical challenges ahead.

But that poses an interesting question: does having leadership experience in the business world provide the experience and acumen required to be a successful president?

Unless you have resided under a (well insulated) rock the last few months, you’ve likely heard this question—in various forms—debated in American media. Of course, the driving factor behind that debate has been the (seemingly) omnipresent figure of Donald Trump, whose lengthy resume includes decades of prominent real estate development and, in recent years, his presence on the hit television program “The Apprentice.”

More recently, adding fuel to the debate about the merits of having a ‘CEO President’, has been the rising popularity of presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, former CEO of tech giant Hewlett-Packard. Like Trump, Fiorina touts her years as Chief Executive of one of the world’s most prominent tech companies as a substantial asset that would provide her with the requisite leadership skills needed to succeed as American president.

Although vastly different in both style and substance, by reaching the top tier of Republican presidential sweepstakes, Trump and Fiorina are forcing both the voters and pundits to confront the real possibility of having a business-trained, ‘non-politician’ as America’s next president.

Like anything having to do with entrepreneurialism, there are risks and rewards—or in this case, potential pros and cons—to selecting a business leader to run the American government, military and foreign policy.

Putting aside the specific individual personalities of prospective candidates, from the perspective of a fellow Chief Executive, here’s what I see as being the benefits–and potential drawbacks–of a President with a business-oriented resume:

Pros:

• Financial savvy: Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of “hiring” a President with a business-oriented background would be the fiscal acumen (and one hopes discipline) that a former business leader would bring to both the Oval Office and Washington, D.C. America’s national debt is approaching $19 trillion, and with a rapidly aging population there will be considerably greater demand on programs such as Social Security and Medicare in the next few years; combine that with Washington’s penchant for ‘pork’—projects that serve the interests of few at the expense of many—and the idea of a president inclined to wield a responsible fiscal ‘stick’ becomes quite appealing indeed
• Leadership skills: One of the core traits of any successful business leader is the ability to put forward a ‘big picture vision’, and then build both the team and widespread consensus required to work toward that goal. Political preferences aside, it is hard to argue that over the last several years in Washington, there has been much ‘consensus’ leadership on display. It could be argued that a president with a proven track record in the business world, which illustrated the ability to ‘bring people together’ from various points of view, might be able to fill the considerable vacuum of visionary, and consensus-building leadership in our nation’s capital
• Interpersonal Skills: As I have discussed in previous columns, the ability to successfully interact and communicate with other senior leaders—as well as audiences both internal and external—is a critical component for achieving success as a business leader. That same skill is needed by a successful president; thirty years ago, despite their vast differences, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev established a strong personal relationship that played a role in diffusing Cold War tensions between the American and Russian super powers. That ability—to get beyond personal differences and work towards a mutually beneficial destiny—is a characteristic that could, potentially, be transferred from the ‘wheeling and dealing’ world of business to that of a President actively involved in world (and domestic) diplomacy.

Cons:

• Division of Powers: America’s Founding Fathers were very wise men who took great precautions to ensure that no one branch of government—or individual, including the President—wielded too much power. As a result, our nation has three branches of government, with Constitutionally-mandated equal powers. In real terms, that means that in order for a president to see his ‘vision’ come to pass, he must convince the Legislative branch—Congress—to pass the laws required to achieve his presidential goals. As we’ve seen in recent years, that’s often easier said than done, and can often require considerable political acumen and experience that a former business leader may not necessarily bring with him or her to the Oval Office.
• Requisite Geopolitical Knowledge/Experience: It can be argued that few presidents arrive on the first day of their job with the required amount of foreign policy knowledge and experience, especially given the critical leadership role that a president plays in setting the national—and indeed, global—political agenda. However, it can also be argued that somepresidents, particularly those who either bring with them senior level political experience garnered from either the statehouse (i.e. governors) or Washington (i.e. Senators, former Cabinet members) at least have a baselineof knowledge about global affairs and/or trade and commerce. Other than senior business leaders of multi-national companies, few Chief Executives would bring with them to D.C. much hands-on acumen about global affairs or trade.
• Lack Of ‘Glad Handing’ Skills: Although there is, of course, a certain amount of ‘office politics’ at play in any organization, there is a vast difference between that, and the type of national political campaigning required to be elected president. Chief Executives tend to be ‘can-do’ people who are more results-oriented, and while there may be some executives who could endure—and perhaps even enjoy—the lengthy, costly and unwieldy process of running for the highest office in the land, many others would find the process onerous; in addition, ‘kissing babies’ and taking ‘selfies’ are not the kind of events that most successful CEOs would normally gravitate towards. Simply put, unlike many ‘professional’ politicians, business people are not ‘natural campaigners’.

Without a doubt, the 2016 Presidential Election is shaping up to be one of the most fascinating, unpredictable races in modern times. Based on early results—and we are, after all, still a full year out from election day—there appears to be a palpable desire among the electorate to–at the very least–give serious consideration to ‘non-traditional’ politicians as our next President, including at least two former/current Chief Executive Officers.

Time, as it always does, will ultimately tell whether the American electorate is truly ready to recruit our next President from the ranks of Corporate America.

In the interim, the debate over transferring a business leader from his—or her—executive corner office to the famed Oval one in Washington is likely to heat up in the coming months.

In earlier posts, I discussed some of the most vital skills required to be a successful Chief Executive Officer.

As you may have noticed, the recurring theme in those columns—and many others that have pertained to successfully managing a growing company—was the absolutely essential need for clear and consistent corporate communications.

Now, on the surface, that may seem to be a given—after all, in business it’s only natural that within an organization employees consistently communicate with their managers, while externally, salespeople regularly communicate with their customers. However, as an organization grows, it also becomes increasingly important that the company consistently communicate with all of its stakeholders—internally as well as externally–as well as the media, which often serves as the conduit for communication between business and the public.

For the senior management of any business, the task of successfully communicating—both internally and externally—has always been somewhat of a challenge, albeit a necessary part of ‘doing business.’ Entrepreneurs are, by their nature, often more focused on building their businesses, rather than sharing their corporate stories.

It’s also ironic, but true, that in this Information Age–where the available tools for communication have never been easier to access and utilize–successful ‘Corporate Communications’ has actually become more challenging.

The fact is that in the Internet age–where even your cell phone can provide limitless amounts of news and information at a moment’s notice–people are constantly inundated with information from a seemingly endless number of sources.

Breaking through that informational ‘din’, and actually connecting with your target audience, is indeed a challenge for all business leaders, and one that requires considerable effort and commitment.

For example: in the case of our company, Sackett National Holdings (SNH), successful communications has never been more important. This year, we’re experiencing unprecedented growth, and as a result, we’ve also been hiring a considerable number of new employees to keep up with that expansion.

That is, of course, good news.

Still, it’s increasingly important that we ensure that all of our employees—both existing and new hires—are kept abreast of our diverse and growing business.  As we strive to ensure that all of our employees understand the current state of our company–and the direction it’s headed going forward—internal corporate communications has become an even more important priority for our Senior Management team.

One of the benefits of having a ‘tech savvy’ company such as SNH is that we are well suited to utilize technology to benefit not only our clients, but our own internal communication efforts as well.

Still, like many growing and diverse companies, one of the challenges we face in achieving our internal communications objectives is basic geography. Our corporate headquarters is located in Las Vegas, but we also have a large office in San Diego, as well as offices in Ohio and Kansas City; in a less-technological age, that geographic disparity would present significant logistical problems for our communication efforts.

Enter the benefits of technology.

As a method of bridging the geographic distance between our regional offices, and ensuring ‘consistent and clear’ corporate communications—our company recently began providing employees a “CEO Communication” webcast; initially broadcast live, and then posted online for several days in case any employees were unavailable during the original webcast, this video allows me—in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer–to speak directly to all  SNH employees, and deliver the good news about our company’s growth and success.

In that same broadcast, we also made a point of singling out several employees for their exceptional work, and thanking them for their efforts on behalf of the company. In addition to sharing information about our company’s growth, we also included some lighter fare, such as photos from company gatherings as well as contests offering employees prizes.

And while internal webcasts are most useful as a means of updating and connecting with staff, I also believe that maintaining the ‘human touch’ is an important element in our internal corporate communication efforts. To that end, we recently held company ‘Town Hall’-type meetings in San Diego and Las Vegas—providing employees with a chance to hear directly from Senior Management about the status of our company, as well as fielding corporate questions from those in attendance.

I was very pleased to find that, in response to an internal survey, 94 percent of our employees said they welcomed the ‘Town Hall’ events, and hoped we would conduct many more on a regular basis; while happy with that result, I wasn’t the least bit surprised, because I recognize the inherent and natural desire of employees to be kept ‘up to speed’ with what’s happening at their place of employment.

Concurrent to our internal communications efforts, our company is also expanding our efforts to reach out to external stakeholders—including current and potential customers—to share information about both our organization, and the innovative products and services we offer.

With double-digit growth, rapid expansion and unique and innovative products to proffer, we’re proud of SNH’s corporate ‘story’, and are committed to the communication efforts required to share our story often, and with as many stakeholders as possible.

In the business world, most commerce can be divided into one of two categories: business-to-business (B2B) as well as business-to-consumer (B2C). At SNH, we’re fortunate to have subsidiaries that are industry leaders in both B2B as well as B2C businesses.

While there may be some minor differences in the way a company approaches communication for a B2B versus B2C audience, it’s imperative that the corporate messaging for both be clear and consistent—and fully aligned with an organization’s internal communications; the several hundred employees who work for our company are our strongest ‘brand’ ambassadors, and ensuring they are fully engaged with our company’s progress is key to our success.

When devising a corporate communications plan, it’s important to keep in mind that throughout all of history, there’s never been a time when information was more readily available–everywhere and all of the time.

Given that reality, one of the most formidable challenges facing organizations—and those charged with running them—is to commit the time, effort and resources required to ensuring successful corporate communications; by doing so, you will also ensure that your company’s story gets heard, and doesn’t fall between the constant ‘clicks’ of the Information Age.

 

It may be hard to believe, particularly for those under-30 years of age, but there was a time in the not-too-distant past, that we all lived in a world where the daily reality included:

• Only one phone company—not so affectionately known as ‘Ma Bell’; and a time when placing a long distance call was often an exceptionally expensive thing to do
• A grand total of three network choices proffered for TV viewing
• The need to be in front of your TV screen, at a designated time—or else risk missing a favorite program
• A world in which would-be photographers had to purchase a camera, then film, and then bring that film to a third party–and wait to get it developed
• And a world in which job seekers had to manually search through the “Help Wanted” ads in their local newspaper

There are many other illustrations of the changing times, but I think you get the point. 

In ways almost too numerous to count, the business world of 2015 bares almost no similarity to the one that existed as recently as 20 years ago. Of course, technology is–and remains–the main driver for the majority of the changes in the way business is conducted today; however, technology has also resulted in one other significant trend within the business world.

The personalization of goods and services. 

One of the most significant changes that technology has both caused–and enabled–has been demand for personalized products and services. Today, it is virtually impossible for any member of the ‘millennial generation’ to conceive of a time when it was the norm for everyone to have the same choices—or in some cases, no choices at all—in everything from telephones to televised entertainment.

In addition, in the era of Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media, the ability to interchange ideas and images with anyone, anywhere at anytime is now a given. And implicit in that fact is the ability for consumers to create, share and enjoy personalized communication and entertainment on a 24/7 basis. 

Many successful businesses—including our own Sackett National Holdings and its subsidiaries—have long touted a commitment to individualized customer service. We’ve long recognized that while a ‘one size fits all’ approach to servicing our clients might make our business model simpler and more uniform, it would also be tantamount to telling customers they’re just ‘another numerical file’; were we to be foolish enough to adapt such a view, the resulting loss of business would be both predictable, and appropriate.

For us, that was always the case. 

However, halfway through the second decade of the new millennium, clients (be they consumers or businesses) now not only appreciate–but expect–to receive products and services designed to meet their individual needs. As I’ve noted in previous columns, the Internet means that customers have a wider array of choices than ever before, and easier access to that plethora of available choices.

Still, even at this late date, some industries are just now awakening to this new reality. Take, for example, the cable television industry. 

It’s estimated that more that $70 billion is spent annually on TV advertising. That’s an impressive figure. However, it may also be deceptive. 

One of the latest buzzwords within the business world is “cord-cutting”, which references a rapidly growing consumer willingness to walk away from ‘bundled’ programming packages offered by the cable TV industry in favor of, you guessed it, more personalized options. 

For decades, cable companies—who have near complete domination of their assigned regions due to lack of competition—have been able to ‘bundle’ dozens of channels, and sell those packages to their customers. Other than opting for satellite television, consumers were left with little or no choice: pay for channels you have no intention of watching, in order to get access to those you will, or walk away from your favorite program or network.

That was then, this is now—and ‘now’ is the age of the Internet. As a result of new technology, a rapidly growing number of TV consumers are cutting their proverbial cable cords—ergo, the phrase ‘cord-cutting’–and seeking alternatives to the expensive cable option; after all, in any business other than cable television, the notion of customers paying for goods or services they know they will never use would be—correctly–seen as patently absurd.

And there is good reason for the cable companies growing concern over a diminishing customer base—as seen in the rapid growth of the alternative option to cable TV. Web video advertising is slated to grow by an impressive 30 percent this year, and while it is valued at about $8 billion dollar (a fraction of the giant cable market), unlike cable, all of the indicating arrows for web-based advertising point upward.

This new era of personalized consumer demand is, perhaps correctly, being seen in historical terms as one of great narcissism. From ‘selfie sticks’ to Twitter—and for better or worse–the primary focus of this era seems to be pleasing the face we see in our mirrors.

However, the bottom line is that businesses failing to provide the quality, personalized goods and services expected by today’s demanding consumers do so at their peril–and risk learning first-hand the economic consequences of customer ‘cord-cutting’.

Back in the 1970s, New York City Mayor Ed Koch was well-known for stopping fellow New Yorkers and randomly asking them “how am I doing?”.

Beyond the obvious attempt at empathizing with his electorate, Koch’s question was actually a wise one; there is much to be gained—and learned—for anyone in a leadership role by pausing every now and then and asking oneself–and others–“how am I doing?”

The theory has ancient roots: even Socrates once opined that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

Still, you might think that in the narcissistic age of the ‘selfie’ and social media, the self-examining question of “how am I doing” could be seen as superfluous, especially in the business world. However, given the competitive nature—and speed—of business these days, far too few business leaders take the time to seriously reflect on just how ‘on target’ their efforts are, and whether or not their operations are in sync with the best interest of their business.

With that in mind, I’d like to offer up five of the key operational questions every successful business leader/owner should ask his or herself–on a regular, recurring basis–to help ensure his company’s long-term prosperity:

5) Do We Have The Right People In Senior Management Positions?

There’s an old adage that says “a fish rots from the head down”. The business implication of that statement being, that if there are problems within the top management of a company, it’s likely that those problems will trickle down to the business’ daily operations.

Of course, the opposite is also true: a well-run company, with senior management who have a clear vision of where the company is heading–and the skills to take it there–is far more likely to succeed and overcome competitors.

Simply stated, it’s imperative that an organization put in place not only skilled senior management—but the right skilled senior management—to ensure that the executive decisions made daily are in sync with how best to both increase sales, while maintaining a positive workplace environment.

4) Is Our Company Sufficiently Open To New Ideas & Taking Appropriate Risks?

As I noted in an earlier column, one of the biggest challenges that face very successful companies is a sense of complacency, and the accompanying assumption that since the company is doing well now, it can expect to continue to enjoy success going forward.

The fact is that in today’s business world things change faster than ever before, and even companies—such as our own Sackett National Holdings–that are today enjoying solid growth, cannot simply assume they will retain that momentum. Innovation and complacency are foes, and it’s rare that a company that loses its competitive edge is also a hub of innovation.

Another victim of corporate complacency is a company’s tolerance for risk. There’s a reason that one of the most commonly used phrases in the entrepreneurial business world is “no risk, no reward”—it just happens to be true. While due diligence is always important, even successful companies have to be willing to accept the degree of risk that’s inherent with innovation, and introducing new products and services. Thus, it’s important for a company to continually ask itself if it is willing to accept the risk that comes with innovation.

3) What defines and delineates our company from our competitors?

In 2012, there was an estimated 29 million small businesses operating in the United States. For any business-owner, that can be an intimidating number, given the implications for competition; certainly, that competition is good news for consumers, but it also means that it’s absolutely imperative that a company be able to offer customers a product or service that can delineate it from its competitors.

In the Internet age, consumers have more choices—and sources of information regarding those choices—than ever before. To be heard above the ‘din’, to stand out from the vast number of competitors, a business needs to identify what it can offer customers that its competition either can’t, or does not: competitive pricing, a track record of reliability, innovative products, and superior customer service are each examples of how a business can delineate itself from others competing for the same customer’s dollar.

But, of course, in order to persuade customers your business stands out from its competition, a company must also ask itself…

2) Are We Doing Enough To Tell The World Our Company’s ‘Story’?

Business people—and particularly entrepreneurs—are hardly renowned as shy or introverted.

And rightly so. For in addition to possessing ability and ‘business smarts’, it takes a great deal of self-confidence to believe that one can overcome the odds to create–and operate–a successful business.

However, in line with my previous point, it’s never been more imperative than in the Internet age that a business makes the effort required to tell the world its ‘story’—to proudly, and accurately, inform current and potential customers about why they should consider the company’s products or services.

The fact is that, as any first year science student knows, “Nature hates a vacuum”, and if a company fails to tell its corporate story, then that ‘void’ will be filled either by misinformation or by another, more proactive competitor’s story.

There’s a reason that even well established, iconic brands such as Coca Cola, Ford Motors or Bank of America spend considerable time and resources in the areas of marketing and public/media relations. It’s because they realize that, despite their iconic brands, they have both a corporate—and fiduciary—responsibility to help shape the ‘narrative’ about what is being said regarding their company; they also recognize that equally ‘iconic’ rivals such as Pepsi Cola, General Motors and Wells Fargo would be happy to fill the information vacuum, should they fail to tell their company’s respective corporate stories.

Even if the ROI (return on investment) isn’t always immediately apparent, it’s imperative that any company—of any size—make whatever reasonable efforts it can to proudly tell the world about itself; failure to do so in a fiercely competitive market endangers the company’s future prospects, no matter the quality of its products or services.

And speaking of future prospects, there’s the critically important question…

1) Where Do We Envision Our Company To Be In Five Years?

We’ve all heard the expression ‘you can’t get to where you want to go, until you know where you want to be’, and nowhere is this truer than in the corporate journey. Simply having a goal of ‘more success’ isn’t a sufficient vision for a company’s future.

In order for a business to have a clearly delineated path to success, it must also have a clearly delineated goal(s). In shaping a company’s path forward, there are a multitude of important questions to address, including:

• How fast do you wish to grow your business?
• Will that growth be organic or via acquisitions, or both?
• Will the focus be specific to a targeted market or geographic region?
• If it’s a privately held entity, do you plan to someday consider taking the company public? If so, what needs to be done in preparation for this move?

And of course, a company’s desired goals may need to be revised over time; circumstances change, and so it may be necessary to revisit a company’s longer-term plans to ensure that they remain in sync with significant external changes that occur.

It’s also critically important to remember that all the ‘how am I doing’ questions outlined here are recurring—businesses, like the people who run them, change over time, and constant adaptation to those changes requires ongoing, honest self-appraisal.

The bottom line is that, in an era where change is accurately said to be the only constant, companies willing to continuously ask themselves “how am I doing” aren’t being narcissistic—they’re being well-run.