An effective governance model involves successful private sector leaders doing a "tour of duty" in government. This brings valuable, real-world expertise to policymaking. While critics cite conflicts of interest, the benefit is having qualified individuals shape regulations for national benefit, rather than career bureaucrats.

Related Insights

To become a more effective leader with a holistic business view, deliberately seek experience across various interconnected functions like operations, marketing, and sales. This strategy prevents the narrow perspective that often limits specialized leaders, even if it requires taking lateral or junior roles to learn.

Luckey reveals that Anduril prioritized institutional engagement over engineering in its early days, initially hiring more lawyers and lobbyists. The biggest challenge wasn't building the technology, but convincing the Department of Defense and political stakeholders to believe in a new procurement model, proving that shaping the system is a prerequisite for success.

Critical media narratives targeting experienced tech leaders in government aim to intimidate future experts from public service. By framing deep industry experience as an inherent conflict of interest, these stories create a vacuum filled by less-qualified academics and career politicians, ultimately harming the quality of policymaking.

In the public sector, the goal is not to outcompete rivals but to improve service delivery. A government CPO's version of competitive research involves talking to counterparts in other states, partnering with civic tech organizations, and learning from innovative vendors to understand best practices.

Unlike a functional manager who can develop junior talent, a CEO lacks the domain expertise to coach their entire executive team (e.g., CFO, VP of HR). A CEO's time is better spent hiring world-class leaders who provide 'managerial leverage' by bringing new ideas and driving their function forward, rather than trying to fix people in roles they've never done.

In siloed government environments, pushing for change fails. The effective strategy is to involve agency leaders directly in the process. By presenting data, establishing a common goal (serving the citizen), and giving them a voice in what gets built, they transition from roadblocks to champions.

The race to manage 40 million government-seeded 'Trump baby accounts' shows how a single policy decision can create a massive, winner-take-all market. This allows the government to act as a 'kingmaker,' anointing one or a few companies with a generational customer acquisition opportunity, similar to how the 401k launch benefited Fidelity and Vanguard.

The US has historically benefited from a baseline level of high competence in its government officials, regardless of party. This tradition is now eroding, being replaced by a focus on loyalty over expertise. This degradation from competence to acolytes poses a significant, underrecognized threat to national stability and global standing.

In 1969, Dean R.J. Miller mandated that 10% of GSB students be in a 'public management program.' The goal was to equip future government leaders with the same rigorous business education as their private sector counterparts, aiming to improve the operational effectiveness and expertise within the public sector.

To improve federal efficiency beyond partisan politics, Oliver Libby proposes creating a Chief Operating Officer for the U.S. government. Modeled after the long-term, cross-administration tenure of the Fed Chair, this role would focus on making government work better for citizens regardless of who is in power.

Government Can Leverage Private Sector Talent via a "Tour of Duty" Model | RiffOn