.

Managers and Leaders

Mitt Romney is probably a terrific manager, but...

Y'know, I think Mitt Romney is probably a terrific manager.

Putting aside (for the moment, anyway) exactly what kinds of things the company he was running actually did to be profitable, the consensus seems to be that he was really good at what he was doing. And I think he deserves some credit for taking over the '02 Olympics when it got into trouble (again, looking only at results, not details).

He certainly looks the part. I think, were I, in some alternate universe, a corporation director looking for a CEO, I'd look for someone much like Mitt Romney. He seems to be someone who has the competence to "pull the levers", as they say, of a large enterprise. To use a metaphor I've used for myself, he knows which buttons to push. He is, to use a somewhat obsolete term, a technocrat.

But here's the difference between a manager and a leader: a leader can hire a good manager. A manager, however, can't hire a leader. Indeed, almost by definition, one cannot "hire" a leader.

Mitt Romney: Decent guy, probably more personable than he seems, helluva manager.

But, ultimately, not a leader.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jeannie Graham May 06, 2012 at 03:30 PM
Mitt Romney IS a leader and will continue to be.
Jaan Carter May 06, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Mitt Romney is definitely a leader. He leads the employees to the door and then kicks them out. It's a great way to cut costs.
Tom Brody May 06, 2012 at 05:15 PM
It could be argued that Mr. Romney is a leader. He is a leader in making babies. Mr. Romney is the proven "Octomom" of politicians.
dave May 06, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Romney is in so many respects exactly what the country needs: a centrist businessman focused on results. Mike Bloomberg would be a better choice but he's not running. In ordinary times I could easily vote for Romney, the first Republican in decades I'd support, but as much as I think he's capable, a Republican president is just too dangerous right now. Half (or more) of that party has gone completely off the deep end: birthers, bigots, buffoons, -et al. Any Republican, no matter how sober minded he may be, will be forced hard to the right to win. And after winning, will be forced to govern toward the right, whether he likes it or not. Ultimately, the Republican party needs to split. The centrist, business oriented wing, which we used to call Rockefeller Republicans, can govern well and win election after election because they reflect what the majority of American are: moderately conservative, focused on results. If/when they cut themselves loose from the hard line right wingers (the nativists, evangelicals, etc) they will succeed.
Tom Schweich May 07, 2012 at 01:57 PM
'Mitt Romney Has Changed Positions More Often Than A Pornographic Movie Queen' -- Sen. Arlen Specter. Mitt Romney has willingly pandered to every Republican fringe group to win his nomination. I can't tell who the man is now. And we would not know who he would really be until he gets in office. We Americans remain ignorant and naive that our President who is the most powerful man in the world. And I'm really reluctant to elect Mitt Romney to that position.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »