谁说商人不是好政治家

自从媒体曝出星巴克董事长霍华德·舒尔茨或将竞选美国总统的消息，政治观察圈就传来了一片冷嘲热讽。这也提醒了我们，企业家的职业轨迹是很容易固化的。这主要有两个原因：一是企业家自身不愿意承担转行的风险；二是因为所谓的“专家学者”天生对商人有种“你也配从政”的迷之鄙视，打心眼儿里不把半路转行的商人当成是“搞政治的”。

先说第一个问题。很多企业家创业成功之后，已经没有了离职再就业的动机。我曾写过一本研究CEO更替的书，名叫《英雄的告别》（The Hero’s Farewell），我在书中将这一类企业领导称为“帝王型领袖”。

比如今年87岁的传媒大亨鲁伯特·默多克，自从父亲去世，他接手家族生意算起，他已经统治他的新闻帝国长达65年了。另一位传媒大佬萨默·雷德斯通也统治了他的娱乐帝国近50年，直到2016年退休——虽然后期他的领导能力越来越走下坡路。联邦快递公司CEO费雷德·史密斯也领导了这家他亲自创办的公司长达47年之久。

成功不一定要成为限制企业家人生选择的窠臼。舒尔茨认为，35年的商海生涯对他来说已经够长了。另外跟以上“帝王型领袖”不同，舒尔茨是可以选择自行离开的，除了办企业，他的人生还有其他的兴趣。但“帝王型领袖”的人生已经与他们的企业捆绑在了一起，可以说他们是在为企业活着。而舒尔茨则是出于巨大的社会责任感而选择了自愿辞职从政。

舒尔茨的决定一开始受到了不少人的肯定，但《华尔街日报》记者霍尔曼·詹金斯却对人们的热情不屑一顾，他表示：“他就像很多人眼中的那种商业精英型政治明星，他没有足够的胆量去做一些必要的事情来赢得总统选举。”

专门研究历届美国总统的历史学家道格拉斯·布林克利也认为，舒尔茨成功竞选总统的机率非常渺茫，其他商业领袖同样也不适合搞政治。他对《纽约时报》表示：“商业领袖竞选美国总统成功的例子很少见，基本上只有胡佛和特朗普这两个特例。”

显然，他没有算上乔治·华盛顿和哈里·杜鲁门从商的经验。

他们的这番论调其实并不陌生，三年前特朗普宣布要竞选美国总统时，我们也听过同样的论调。当时，各大新闻频道都把特朗普的竞选声明当作娱乐新闻来看。彭博社的约翰·海勒曼宣称：“特朗普有可能成为总统，甚至是总统的候选人吗？我不认为。”MSNBC的麦克·巴尼克尔也表示：“我们是不是现在就可以说，特朗普永远也当不上美国总统了？”

当时，支持特朗普也不是所谓的“政治正确”。2015年8月，有40位财大气粗的共和党大佬（多数是保守派）在经济学家拉里·库德罗的家中搞了一次沙龙式晚宴，席间就他们青睐的共和党候选人展开了一番讨论。我当时提出，有一匹黑马被大家都忽略了，这匹黑马就是特朗普，因为他煽动听众和潜在选民的能力实在不容忽视。结果人群爆发出阵阵哄笑，所有人都说他缺乏公共政策领域的经验，也没有在民选机构工作过，更别说他还是这么一副爱得罪人的性格。有两个其他候选人的竞选经理当场表示，如果特朗普过了劳动节还没有放弃，他们只要联合起来，就能轻松地把特朗普搞下去。

我在一篇发表于《财富》杂志的文章中曾驳斥过这些“专家”对特朗普的偏见。特朗普的个人形象当然带有本土主义、反女权、种族主义和“通俄”等种种负面色彩，但他的核心形象仍然是一个商人的形象，而商人在美国历史的多个时期都曾扮演过英雄的角色。

除了特朗普以外，星巴克的董事长舒尔茨、美国的脱口秀“一姐”奥普拉·温弗瑞、摩根大通的杰米·戴蒙也都涉足过政界，并各自取得了不小的成就。

克服逆境的能力

从各种民间传说中就能看出，英雄不怕出身低，越是出身贫贱的英雄，越容易给人一种平易近人的感觉。

寻常百姓看待国家领导人或商业领袖，也跟看待英雄差不多，他们都应该具有败中求胜的能力。比如特朗普本人就好几次从破产中绝地求生。杰米·戴蒙1999年还曾被花旗集团开除过，但最终他却当上了美国第一银行的负责人，并促成了第一银行与摩根大通的合并。昔日的花旗银行“劝退生”，也成了今日全球银行界最令人敬畏的金融大亨。

奥普拉·温弗瑞少年时曾遭遇过猥亵，14岁就怀了孕，儿子早早夭折。后来她搬到田纳西与亲戚住在一起，并且成为了一名优等生，19岁时，她抓住机会成了一名电台新闻主播。到了1986年，她已经成了一档日间节目的主持人。目前，她的个人财富已达30亿美元。

舒尔茨7岁时，有一天回到家，发现他那个退伍老兵父亲由于工伤已经成了残废。由于他父亲没有任何医保和离职补偿，他们一家不仅经济困顿，精神上也陷入了绝望。后来舒尔茨获得了一所州立大学的体育奖学金，并且靠打工上完了大学。毕业后他曾干过几份销售的工作，然后他发现当地有一家叫星巴克的小咖啡公司正在招人。又经过几十年的努力，他终于成了一名亿万富翁和模范雇主。

大胆求新，敢于颠覆

企业领导者们一般不乏勇气、眼光和执行力，敢于创新和转型，这些也正是我们希望国家领导人具备的特质。他们不仅能在自己的企业中推动变革，也应能在整个行业甚至整个社会推动变革。

在舒尔茨的领导下，星巴克从11家门店，做到了如今的28,000家门店，遍布全球77个国家。虽然不论哪个超市都在卖星巴克的罐装咖啡，但同时“星巴克”三个字也已经成了高端咖啡店的标杆，说是重新定义了咖啡界也不为过。

善于学习沟通

作为一个优秀的美国总统，你必须知道如何倾听别人的声音，如何整合复杂信息，如何推销你的理念，如何担负责任。这一点正是商人的长项。许多上市公司的CEO都不知疲倦地出席各种活动，在全国乃至全球各地通过他们的形象传递自己的理念。

比如2007年，杰米·戴蒙曾极有远见地向美国金融监管机构发出警告，称全球金融市场存在定价错误的风险。在金融市场崩溃后，他成了美国国会听证会上最清楚、可靠和值得信赖的声音，向老百姓解释了那些复杂的金融工具和不计后果的做法所带来的灾难。

舒尔茨给予了他的大量支持者以见解和希望，而不是让他们只会愤怒和抱怨。不管他做的事有多正确，人们之所以支持他，都是出于他的领导能力，而不是因为这些事以前是什么样子。

投身公共事务

这些商人从政后，不管是当了内阁官员，还是委员会主席，服务的都是公共事业。比如温弗瑞就积极投身于心脏病、地缘政治、灵性、冥想、抗癌、慈善事业、药物滥用等很多公益事业。戴蒙也不仅仅关心摩根大通的利益，作为商业圆桌会议的主席，他也关心整个华尔街甚至华盛顿的国家大事。

舒尔茨也曾热情投身过许多公益事业，比如可持续发展、种族关系、枪支暴力、贫富差距、经济发展、退伍军人就业和财政赤字等等。

社会需要战士，也需要外交官、探险者、技术员和企业家。社会最需要哪些人充当英雄，取决于社会最大的不确定性是什么，也取决于领导者的个人角色。有了公众的鼓励，或许将有越来越多经验丰富的企业家扔掉他们的“王冠”，投身到政治活动中来。

下一届美国总统或许不是温弗瑞、戴蒙或者舒尔茨这些人，但特朗普也绝对不会是最后一个商人出身的美国总统。因此，所谓的“政治专家们”应该认真了解一下企业家精神，学会公正地评价商人，而不是因为他们没机会当官，就断言他们不是从政的料。（365娱乐场）

本文作者杰弗里·索南菲尔德是耶鲁大学管理学院领导力研究高级副院长、管理实务教授，也是《反击：CEO如何从职业灾难中反弹》一书的作者。

译者：朴成奎

The wave of cynicism that followed the speculation that Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz was departing the corner office for the campaign trail reminds us how easy it is for leaders to get typecast. Two very different barriers are: 1) the leader’s reluctance to take a risk and try a career switch and 2) the unwillingness of cynical pundits to take seriously later-career business leaders as newcomers to politics.

On the first barrier, those leaders who control their own thrones see little reason to leave. In my study of CEO succession, The Hero’s Farewell, I termed such leaders as “monarchs.”

Media monarch Rupert Murdoch, at age 87, amazingly has run his news empire for 65 years, taking over from his father after his death. Fellow media baron Sumner Redstone ran his entertainment empire for roughly 50 years until 2016 despite deteriorating command. FedEx CEO Fred Smith has led the business he founded for 47 years.

But business leaders do not have to be trapped by their success. Schultz decided that 35 years was long enough for him, and unlike the above monarchs, was able to voluntarily depart. He has other interests beyond the enterprise. Business monarchs generally do not—and live only for the business. It is due to this large societal calling, then, that Schultz can make this voluntary exit.

The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins dismissed the initial public enthusiasm for this move, suggesting, “Like many business types with political stars in their eyes…he perhaps lacks the stomach to do what’s necessary to win in presidential politics.”

Similarly, presidential historian Douglas Brinkley dismissed Schultz’s prospects as well as those of other business leaders, telling The New York Times, “The history of business leaders in the White House has not been good. You basically have Herbert Hoover and Donald Trump.”

Apparently he discounts the business experience of George Washington and Harry Truman.

The skeptics are reminiscent of the same groupthink haze we heard three years back. On the day Trump announced his candidacy for president, the major news networks framed it as nothing more than entertainment. Bloomberg’s John Heilemann announced: “Will it get him anywhere close to becoming the nominee or the President of the United States? I think not.” MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle proclaimed: “Can we stipulate for the purposes of this conversation that Donald Trump will never be President of the United States?”

He was taken no more seriously on the political right. At an August 2015 salon-style dinner in then-TV economist Larry Kudlow’s home, 40 deep-pocketed, largely conservative Republican fellow guests debated the qualities of their favorite Republican candidates. I suggested that the missing “elephant in the room” candidate to be discussed was Trump, given his ability to electrify audiences and address disaffected potential voters. The group exploded in gales of laughter, commenting on his lack of public policy experience or service in elected office—let alone his offensive style. The managers of two other campaigns insisted they’d join forces to easily destroy Trump’s candidacy if it lived past Labor Day.

I challenged such pundit ridicule of Trump’s chances in a Fortune article. Regardless of the contribution of voter nativist sentiment, misogyny, racism, and Russian interference, Trump tapped into core iconography of mythic American business figures, which has made them heroic at various times in our history.

Other private sector contenders to the White House such as Schultz, Oprah Winfrey, and Jamie Dimon offer parallel relevant crossover appeal to public service.

Resilience from adversity

Folklorists have highlighted the importance of humble origins for heroes to show a common touch and accessibility.

We look to presidents and business leaders like mythic heroes to provide a path to recovery from setbacks. Trump rebounded from multiple bankruptcies. Dimon was fired from Citigroup in 1999. He eventually took over the troubled Bank One, leading it into a merger with JPMorgan Chase, which resulted in Dimon becoming the most feared and revered global banker.

Winfrey was molested through her childhood and early teens, became pregnant at 14, and lost her son in his infancy. She moved to Tennessee to live with a relative, became an honors student, and got a break to be a radio news anchor at age 19. By 1986, she was hosting her own daytime show and has since accumulated $3 billion of personal wealth.

Schultz came home from school at age 7 to discover his father, a war veteran, was disabled due to an industrial accident. Lacking health insurance, workman’s compensation, or severance, they were financially impoverished and spiritually demoralized. Schultz earned an athletic scholarship to a state college and worked his way through school. Later he drifted through sales roles before he discovered the small regional coffee company called Starbucks, becoming a billionaire as well as a model employer.

Bold, disruptive impact

CEOs can show the same courage, vision, and execution we seek in a U.S. president through their ability to create and spark transformations. They trigger transformation not just in their own business, but across their industry, across sectors, and beyond

Schultz took Starbucks from 11 to 28,000 stores in 77 countries. It became the standard for premium coffee despite being available in grocery stores everywhere—while its own stores reinvented café society.

Great learners and communicators

Good U.S. presidents must know how to listen, integrate new complex information, sell concepts, and be accountable. With indefatigable energy, many public company CEOs drive nearby ubiquitous campaigns to convey their message around the nation and around the world relying upon vivid imagery.

In 2007, Dimon challenged leading financial regulators prophetically warning of mispriced risk in global markets. After financial markets collapsed, he become the most reliable, trusted, clear voice in congressional hearings untangling complex instruments and reckless practices for the public to understand.

Schultz draws large town hall audiences advancing with vision and hope rather than angry finger-pointing slogans. However virtuous his causes, they are generally defined around his own leadership over pre-existing movements.

Sweeping civic causes

Serving as cabinet officers and commission chairs, they champion national causes. Winfrey has championed issues regarding: heart disease, geopolitics, spirituality, meditation, inter cancer, charity work, and substance abuse, Dimon has gone above and beyond parochial JP Morgan interests to bridge Wall Street, Main Street, and Washington as chairman of the Business Roundtable.

Schultz has passionately launched virtuous, if transitory, initiatives regarding: sustainability, race relations, gun violence, income disparity, economic development, veteran employment, and the budget deficit.

Society turns to warriors, diplomats, explorers, technologists, and even business titans, depending on where our greatest uncertainties lie and thus anoint its heroes depending on our needs and the leaders’ personas. With public encouragement, longstanding business titans may increasingly be drawn off their thrones into political campaigns.

The next U.S. president may not be Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Dimon, or Howard Schultz, but Donald Trump is surely not our last. Thus, the political pundits should start to learn about business to learn to judge them rather than to write them off because they did not have a chance to serve as public officials.

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is the senior associate dean for leadership studies and Lester Crown professor of management practice at the Yale School of Management, and author of Firing Back: How CEOs Rebound From Career Disasters.