It’s often said that we try to choose the best qualified candidate for all our jobs.  We can debate whether we’re serious about this principle, but it sounds good.  And, in large part, I think most people involved in the hiring process abide by this principle.

When you’re hiring people for the top jobs in a company, positions in the so-called C-Suite, the principle is perhaps taken even more seriously.  So, if a new Chief Executive Officer is being hired, it’s likely the powers that be will look for candidates who already have CEO experience or, at least, experience close to the top of an organization.  Attention will also be given, of course, to the CEO job description in deciding on the right person for the top job, but past CEO experience is considered golden.   I’ve sometimes thought that by placing so much weight on past CEO experience, some good people who haven’t quite made it to the CEO ranks yet are overlooked.  However, it’s hard to argue with a slate of candidates who’ve already run a company as the top dog.

How does this translate to hiring, or electing, the CEO of the United States of America?  Interestingly, Article II of the U.S. Constitution is somewhat short on a job description, which is probably good.  We’ve seen Presidents come from all sorts of backgrounds, experiences and jobs, and I think that’s a good thing.

Section 2 of Article I contains the part of the slim job description that seems to be talked about the most:  “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”  Although many argue (based on the Federalist Papers and other documents from the early days) that the Founding Fathers intended that the country’s CEO would provide civilian control of the military, that doesn’t help with the question often raised as to whether, in order to best serve as commander in chief, the President should have military experience.  That’s a reasonable question.  After all, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (who reports to the President) would be ill-qualified for his or her position without a heck of a lot of military experience.  But the Chairman’s job description no doubt requires that kind of experience.  The President’s job description doesn’t.

In our history, the following Presidents served in wars:  George Washington (Revolutionary War); James Monroe (Revolutionary War); Andrew Jackson (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, First Seminole War); William Henry Harrison (Indian Wars in the Northwest Territory, War of 1812); John Tyler (War of 1812); Zachary Taylor (War of 1812, Second Seminole War, Mexican War); Franklin Pierce (Mexican War); James Buchanan (War of 1812); Abraham Lincoln (Black Hawk War); Andrew Johnson (Civil War); Ulysses Grant (Mexican War, Civil War); Rutherford Hayes (Civil War); James Garfield (Civil War); Chester Arthur (Civil War); Benjamin Harrison (Civil War); William McKinley (Civil War); Theodore Roosevelt (Spanish-American War); Harry Truman (World War I); Dwight Eisenhower (World War I, World War II); John Kennedy (World War II); Lyndon Johnson (World War II); Richard Nixon (World War II); Gerald Ford (World War II); and George H.W. Bush (World War II). 

Twelve of the war-serving Presidents were military generals:  Washington, Jackson, both Harrisons, Taylor, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, and Eisenhower.  

To be fair, however, of the war-serving Presidents, Buchanan, Lincoln, both Johnsons, and Arthur spent little time in the military or in war, which means that Andrew Johnson was sort of a general in name only.

The following Presidents were in the military but saw no action in war:  James Madison, James Polk, Millard Fillmore, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

The following Presidents had no military experience whatsoever:  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton.   Of the no-military-experience Presidents, the following presided over wars:  Jefferson (Tripolitan War against the Barbary Pirates); Van Buren (Aroostook War, Second Seminole War); Wilson (World War I);  Harding (World War I); and Roosevelt (World War II).

Although agreement could never be reached on who is the best President in our history, it’s often said that scholars, political scientists, historians, and the American people consistently place three at the top:  Washington (who had tons of military experience); Lincoln (who had little military experience); and Franklin Roosevelt (who had no military experience).  So, while the majority of our Presidents had military experience, history doesn’t seem to support the proposition that it takes military experience to be a good, even great, President.  Indeed, Lincoln and FDR, who presided over two of the most important wars in our history, receive good marks for their job as commander in chief.

It still seems fair to ask whether a person with no experience in war or no military experience at all should be the commander in chief–the person in charge of sending  young people to die for our country.  The Constitution doesn’t require it, so it’s not a determinative question, but it seems to be one worth considering in choosing the nation’s CEO, together with a number of other important questions.

It’s difficult to make direct comparisons between electing the President and hiring a CEO, but think about it.   It seems to me that it would be odd to hire as the CEO of Google, Microsoft or Hewlett Packard a person who had no experience with technology or who had never owned a computer.  It would be odd to hire as the CEO of Anheuser-Busch a person who didn’t like beer.  It would be odd to hire as the CEO of Harley Davidson a person who didn’t own and ride a hog.  But, as odd as all that might seem, those things aren’t determinative, or shouldn’t be, just as military experience isn’t determinative.  What should be determinative is a person’s character, integrity, intelligence, work ethic, and leadership quotient.  To a more limited extent, all of those characteristics should be determinative in hiring the best qualified candidate for any job.

Choosing the best qualified candidate.  That’s what we want to do for the U.S. Presidency.  It should be what we want to do for any CEO, any manager or supervisor, any employee.  Sometimes, easier said than done, to be sure, because we have to ask questions that can’t be answered with certainty–we have to consider circumstances that, while odd, shouldn’t be determinative.  But it’s a praiseworthy goal, and one that can usually be accomplished as long as the focus stays on character, integrity, intelligence, hard work, and leadership.