Jill Porter: For CEO of the U.S., would you hire Clinton or Obama?
MICHAEL GINSBERG is wracked with the same indecision that's tormenting so many of us: Clinton or Obama? As a liberal Democrat, his heart says to vote for Obama, he told me in an e-mail last week.
MICHAEL GINSBERG is wracked with the same indecision that's tormenting so many of us: Clinton or Obama?
As a liberal Democrat, his heart says to vote for Obama, he told me in an e-mail last week.
"So far, though, my mind has been undecided."
But Ginsberg came up with a novel way to potentially resolve the conflict.
As a senior associate at an executive- search firm, he'd evaluate them as if they were being considered for CEO of a corporation: in this case, the USA.
How would he judge them for the job? Whom would he recommend to his "client" - in this case, the "citizens of America"?
Whom would he present to David Shabot, managing director and his boss at Korn/Ferry International, as the best choice?
One thing Shabot is certain of: If Clinton and Obama were the only candidates Ginsberg could come up with, "we'd have a client who'd be firing us right now, probably."
"They'd say you'd better find someone else," Shabot said while he, Ginsberg and I sat in his office.
Clinton is marginally qualified, based on her experience, he said. But Obama?
"If we were doing the job search, we'd look at his resume and say we're not sure we even see him as qualified, from an experience standpoint."
Obama would be considered only as an "outside-the-box" candidate whose "emotional competencies" made up for his thin resume, Ginsberg said.
Then the candidates would come in for an interview, which Shabot likes to start with a provocative question.
Barack's question would relate to his wife, Michelle, a powerful, outspoken personality.
"I'd say: 'Why did a wife like yours marry a wimp like you?' " Shabot said.
Ouch.
As for Hillary, "I'd ask her why
she even tries to be nice. Because she's really not very nice."
Ouch again.
Such questions are designed to penetrate the public facade people show and reveal the unguarded individual who emerges in private.
One reason many people remain undecided, Shabot and Ginsberg said, is that no one knows what Obama is like beyond his public persona.
"I don't think we can really see who Obama is. What we're still seeing is his leadership style," Shabot said.
Clinton is far more transparent - and that could help her with some voters, he said.
"Whether you like her or not, at least you know her."
The job interview also allows Shabot to perform a crucial task: Look into the candidates' eyes.
"The eyes tell me a lot," Shabot said, and assessment tests almost always confirm his impressions.
In Hillary's case, Shabot sees "an edge, a sharpness that suggests this woman could be real tough if she wanted to be.
"In Barack's eyes, you actually see more collaborativeness, a greater ability to accept compromise," he said.
So, whom do you want to answer that red phone at 3 a.m.?
Obama's kumbaya karma might work, Shabot said, but he's too inexperienced and too unknown to know for sure.
In case you were wondering, Shabot is a registered Independent, so the whole exercise for him is academic.
The candidates would then get written assessment tests to evaluate other crucial qualities, such as:
* Decision-making: Is the per-
son data-driven or intuitive? Clinton is both and Obama is more intuitive, he said.
* Are they planners or doers?
Obama seems more of a planner and Clinton a doer.
* What motivates the person?
An "entrepreneurial" desire to start something new? Power? A vast new learning experience? Obama "may be motivated more by wanting to learn than anything else," Shabot said, and Clinton clearly "wants to be king."
Shabot said he'd recommend Hillary to be the CEO of a "lackadaisical" company in a competitive industry that needed to become "more powerful, decisive, confidant."
He'd recommend Obama for a company that needed "healing" - a post-merger company, say, that was suffering from a clash of corporate cultures.
And, of the two, Clinton would get his nod to be CEO of the USA.
The country is in too much of a "risk environment" to go with an untested, unorthodox candidate such as Obama, he said - at least not without warning the client that it'd be taking a gamble.
So did that settle it for Michael Ginsberg, whose idea it was to evaluate the candidates as job aspirants?
He agrees that Clinton is more qualified, but he's "inspired" by Obama.
"I still don't know," he said, chagrined. *
E-mail porterj@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5850. For recent columns: