The recent outpouring of former businesspeople, like Carly Fiorina of HP or Meg Whitman of eBay, trying to make their way into politics has renewed the debate about possible advantages and disadvantages of such career changes. With the economic crisis and the ensuing recession often attributed to faulty political decisions and social discontent towards traditional representatives running unusually high, newcomers from a more reality-based field are likely to be welcomed by voters. Their accomplishments, competences and networks promise more relevance in terms of tackling such challenges as budget deficit, public debt or financing of community services than what old names can offer. It seems a background in a demanding market environment holds superior appeal in constituencies than a clerical or legal career, so common among elected officials. For all this alluring impression, though, there is a precipitous gap between the two worlds that a lot of former executives might find nearly impossible to bridge.

First, they need to realize where their power and authority come from and what practical consequences it might have for their role. While a CEO is firmly established at the helm of an organization by appointment from a board of directors, with clear-cut allegiances, politicians have no other way to obtain an office than run for it in a complex, often contradictory, campaign. This tangled mess of loyalties is much harder to manage and predict, also because expectations and objectives are very different.

Another thing to bear in mind is discrepancy in the character of daily operations. Business organizations tend to be intensely goal-orientated, setting out their strategies and detailed tactics to have them delivered. It might involve reconciling divergent needs, opinions or directions, but the ultimate goal of making a profit and increasing the value of a company for its stakeholders stands firmly in the center at all times, for all involved. In a legislative body, the situation resembles ongoing conflict resolution, meeting halfway to realign the demands of disparate social groups and vested interests. The final goal is a constant work in progress and it is not uncommon to have to take two steps back before taking a step forward.

Business background tends to have a much more mixed impact than common perceptions suggest. Even though executives may claim responsibility for generating jobs or creating value for organizations, more often than not their duties are centered around less photogenic decisions, like axing staff, cutting costs or optimizing business by any means necessary. A history of ruthless cooperation with subcontractors or hostile takeovers, all acceptable as part of free market practice, could potentially backfire as anti-social or not humane enough.

Furthermore, rationalizing or modernizing ideas, often inspired by corporate training, that go perfectly well with businesses and seem applicable to a wider society run the risk of being too radical, too revolutionary. The reaction to the same or similar solutions in politics can be oddly allergic and, additionally, the electorate is in no way prepared to be ordered around, even if it involves seemingly fantastic notions from top corporate training programs that just need to be put to work by people.