15: Running a country is the same to running a big corporation

First, before exploring this idea, I would like to invite people to watch this video:

In this video, Graham describes an example of the bridge at the campus took   a few years to finish the repair. This is really common in United States. Another typical example is the light rail at Seattle. 21 miles was planned and approved in 1996. 23 years later, 2019 now, this city still hasn’t finished.

Why is that?

There are two reasons:

  1. Leader: the leader of the city is elected. He or she does not care too much the long term goal. In a few years, another leader will take over. Why bother? There is no need to be determined, to finish, to accomplish anything once elected.
  2. So-called “democracy”: most people think they have a voice, which has nothing wrong for sure. People should be able to express their opinion. However, people need to realize that a group needs a strong leader. If everyone keeps arguing, raising opinions, a group gets nothing done. I am not saying people should not raise opinion, I am saying someone in a group needs to be directing.

Then how a normal person’s voice bubbles up?

This leads to today’s idea:

Running a country/state/city is the same to running a corporation.

Why a company can succeed but other fail? Because of the decision of the leader, which is the CEO. Let’s use some positive examples: Steve Jobs, Howard Schultz, Satya Nadella. Those people lead the company to a right direction.

Of course, there are many negative examples as well: Steve Ballmer, Carly Fiorina, Eddie Lampert, and many others. Those people not only failed to deliver good influence to the company, but also put the company to a wrong way.

Are CEO elected. Sure they are. However, not directly by employees. And each leader (most of them) has a long history of outstanding performance and then gets nominated in the board meeting. Once the CEO is there, he or she stays until something bad really happens, or board votes to let him/her go.

This is applied to the leader of a country.

Let’s take Rodrigo Duterte as an example. Personally, I consider him as a strong figure who is very determined to do the thing he believe it’s right.

I am not going to debate if we can go with a different way. But he carried on his method as a leader.

Another figure is: Lee Kuan Yew.

Here, we are not talking about dictator. We are talking about the leader who is determined to execute actions for the group he/she is leading, because he/she believes the action is right.

A dictator is someone who does not care about his/her people, only sinks in the fulfillment of the power, temporary treasure and all kinds of other lures.

A leader is different.

Let’s use Seattle as an example. Why would any mayor bother solving the homeless crisis? Why can’t someone stay in position long enough to have a long-term plan, which makes sure he or she has enough time to solve anything? This person will have a sense of responsibility, not a short-term dummy because some companies sponsor the campaign. This person should have a proven history solving hard problems and long-term vision. Yes, give the person an interview, broadcast it to public, and let citizens know why he or she is chosen.

Maybe that will work.

That is just my opinion, and this week’s idea.