Why Business Leaders Make Lousy Politicians

When Donald Trump talked about deploying the military against "the enemy within," critics sounded the alarm—again—about his increasingly authoritarian rhetoric. Many see his escalating threats as proof of a growing thirst for power. But history suggests that another factor may be at least as relevant: mounting frustration at the compromises that political life demands.

Trump pitched himself to the American people as a business tycoon, someone who knew how to close deals, vanquish competitors, and create jobs. He said those experiences would make him an effective leader. Yet it turns out that what makes people successful in business is a risk factor for failure in politics.

Corporate America rewards achievement strivers—people who  love to aim high, work hard, and overcome obstacles. To see how those tendencies played out in the White House, psychologists scored presidential addresses on how often they referenced achievement. Years later, achievement-striving presidents got lower greatness ratings from historians, who also judged them as poorer decision makers and less politically skilled than their peers.

A prime example is Jimmy Carter. Although as a private citizen he had succeeded in revitalizing his family’s peanut farm, in the White House he struggled to control inflation, fuel prices, and escalating conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan. As the University of Michigan psychologist David Winter explains, the achievement-minded “president actively strives to accomplish things but becomes frustrated, dislikes the job, and ends up defeating himself.”

Winter wrote that looking backward in 2010, but he could have easily been looking ahead at Donald Trump.

When Winter scored Trump’s 2017 inauguration address, accomplishment was the most pronounced theme. You can hear it in his daily proclamations, too: He emphasizes progress and excellence. Make America great again. He talks about victory. We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. He stresses unique accomplishments. A historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before. And of course he expresses independent competence. I alone can fix this.

For most of his career, what Trump coveted was not political power but success and status. He flaunted his wealth, not his influence. And he never acknowledged defeat. Six bankruptcies didn’t stop him. Neither did the demise of Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Magazine, Trump Vodka or Trump Steaks.

In business, achievement striving pays off because leaders are in the driver’s seat. When Trump entered the Oval Office, he suddenly had to contend with the constraints that the Constitution, the legislature, and the courts have designed to limit a president’s power. Federal judges struck down his travel bans. Congress stymied his wall and impeached him. Policy advisors blew the whistle on his wheeling and dealing with foreign leaders. His own cabinet badmouthed him to the press. The justice department investigated his conduct. The government shut down. “This is more work than my previous life,” Trump lamented after just three months in office. “I thought it would be easier.”

David Winter is the world’s leading expert on presidential motives. Back in 2010, he warned of the “authoritarian shadow” that can follow achievement strivers: “When the political stakes are high and the sense of control is threatened or jeopardized, achievement-motivated leaders are likely to employ a variety of tactics—micromanagement, bypassing legislators with direct ‘appeals to the people,’ illegal acts, and in extreme cases, a coup d’e´tat—to restore their sense of being in control.”

Achievement strivers thrive when they’re in charge of their own destiny, free to build whatever walls they please. When they find themselves running into walls instead, they’re often willing to do whatever it takes to attain success and avoid failure. Especially if they’ve fallen short of their own past accomplishments—and even if it means crossing legal or moral lines. It may not be a coincidence that Richard Nixon scored high on achievement striving.

What many achievement strivers overlook is the critical distinction between persistence and obstinance. In the words of the technology entrepreneur and investor Paul Graham, “The persistent are like boats whose engines can't be throttled back. The obstinate are like boats whose rudders can't be turned.”

Once Trump set his sights on winning reelection, nothing could turn his rudder. When the votes didn’t go his way, he cycled through failing strategy after failing strategy, from accusations of fraud to appointments of fake electors to bogus lawsuits to pressuring his vice president to overturn the Electoral College count. Now if he ends up challenging the results of another election, he’ll be a private citizen without the federal government at his disposal. That might be part of the motivation behind his intensifying threats. As Trump’s former chief of staff, General John Kelly, recently observed: “I think he’d love to be just like he was in business—he could tell people to do things and they would do it.”

Pundits often debate how much leaders matter. Can a single person in power really make a difference? Research reveals that the answer depends on the sector. In business, CEOs are mostly interchangeable—they have relatively little impact on the financial performance of their firms. But in politics, leaders are more variable and more influential. Governors have an impact on crime and fiscal policy. Senators shape legislation; once they rise into committee leadership roles, those who show more virtues than vices get more bills passed into law. And heads of state affect an entire nation’s economic growth and decide whether to pursue peace or go to war.

It's true that outsiders may bring fresh ideas. But they often lack the expertise and experience to lead effectively. Economists find that we’re better off giving the reins to people who are skilled in the core work of the institution. Hospitals are more successful when they’re run by doctors, universities publish higher-impact research when they’re led by top scholars, and NBA teams fare better in the playoffs when they’re coached by former All-Star players. Running an entire country well requires knowledge and skill in governing and legislating.

Among historians, the consensus is that our greatest president was Abraham Lincoln. Before entering politics, he floundered in commerce. He bought a general store that went bust and he had to file for bankruptcy. He went on to spend a decade cutting his political teeth in the Illinois state legislature and the House of Representatives. What made Lincoln an exceptional leader was not his business acumen or his ambition—it was his character.

Lincoln had the generosity to hold regular office hours in which he heard the concerns of ordinary citizens. He had the humility to welcome his political rivals into his cabinet instead of surrounding himself with sycophants. He had the curiosity to read widely—despite his lack of formal education, he was a voracious student of the Bible, history, literature, law, and poetry.  And he had the integrity to end slavery, prizing honor and morality over popularity, power, and party.

The most important question about presidential candidates is not what success they’ve achieved in the private sector. It’s what principles they uphold as public servants.