Let me start by saying ... politics isn't my thing.  Whether it is in government or corporate America, I've always felt that politics stifles productivity and profit, respectively.

Recently I stumbled on the news that Carly Fiorina is running for Senate in California and Meg Whitman is running for Governor of the same state.  What moved two of the most visible and successful women from private to public sector after their rein as prominent corporate leaders?

For those who don't know, Carly Fiorina was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) from 1999 to 2005 and Meg Whitman was the CEO of eBay from 1997 to 2008.  Both recognized for growing their company's revenues, but also as influential leaders and top CEO's.  It goes without saying they are the fractional percentage of a very elite group.  These two women are clearly experienced in motivating groups of people toward common goals, charismatic leaders comfortable standing in front of large crowds, with the press listening and dissecting every word.  They are used to being voted on - historically by shareholders buying and selling their stock taking the price up & down and today by ordinary citizens that have concerns with healthcare, education, jobs, and energy.

From everything I have read, they are passionate about their state and believe they can make change.  They believe that they are qualified to drive this change based on their experience and success in the business environment.  Since I've never thought about it before, it comes to me that running a business is a very much top down, where as running a state or precinct is bottom up.  Forget about the election part, I'm talking about day to day.  At work, your boss asks you to do something, you do it.  When was the last time the governor asked you to do something and you jumped right on it?  Well, maybe I'm bitter, having lived in Illinois where 4 of the past 8 governors have been charged with corruption.  Apparently it is hard to get things done in government by just asking. How influential are we when we lose the stick of a paycheck and must rely solely on carrots of change?  Another notable difference from their new peer group, both these women are MBA's -- not lifelong government workers who felt the "calling" to civic duty.

By adding that these women are MBA's, I've probably opened to the door to the comparison to the most recent MBA leader of the free world.  Is being a business person a good prerequisite to success in government positions?  In history we've proven that lawyers tend to make good elected officials.  We've also elected actors into powerful positions; actually the current governor of California has acting credentials.  By comparison, Carly was an MBA - CEO of a Fortune 20 business.  Were any of the other 19 CEO's previous disciplines in the law or acting? I guess I clearly don't know if the transferability of these skills is necessary or even required.  Time will certainly tell.

What I do believe is that these women did not make the decision lightly to run for elected office.  As neither of them have "put in their time" rising through their local government ranks, they are political entrepreneurs.  They are going to enter government from mid-air, set their own rules and organize their own empires. They have a plan.  They discussed it with their confidants, assessed their strengths and weaknesses, and established exploratory committees to determine feasibility. To get to the top ranking positions within their companies, they needed to clearly articulate their career aspirations, map out a path and hold themselves accountable for their development.  In this example, both Carly and Meg are making somewhat of a career change.  Again, they likely put pen to paper and mapped out another plan.  Based on the fact that there are currently seventeen women in the senate and 6 female governors, I'd bet their plan is directional.  They know they are going to make mistakes and they may take a very public tumble.  But, they are going to put themselves out there, because they believe they can drive change.  If nothing else, you have to admire their persistence.

So, I started announcing politics isn't my thing.  Personally, I think Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said "I have no ambition to govern men; it is a painful and thankless office. ", but these women are clearly up for the challenge and it does make me pause ... in 2012 or 2016 will we be seeing a woman's name on the presidential ballot and hearing those 2 little, but powerful words, "Madam President"?

UPDATE

Both Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman lost their respective bids for elected office.  We'll likely never untangle the reasons for their defeat.  Was it their postiionas govenment 'outsiders', leadership style, general likeability or the fact they are women?  It could be any number of reasons.  I'd sure be interested to know what their "plans" look like now.

Is this helpful? Please let us know in the comments your thoughts on this as well as other ways we can help you with your career and training.