Toolbox Theory
A friend once opined that to him, the meaning of life is having the right tool for the job and happiness is achieved when you do the things you love to do. Combine those two axioms and you have the recipe for success.
With the approaching election, you will be deciding who you think will be the best person for an elected office. Since your tax dollars will be directed by this person, you are the employer looking to hire out of a pool of 2 to 4 applicants.
As a young entrepreneur I learned that in general, people suck at doing things they don’t like to do. They lack motivation, enthusiasm and are generally unpleasant to work around. This bad attitude is infectious and soon the entire team is in a negative state. Find someone’s native skills, apply them, and they will adapt quickly and perform well.
You need to fit the personality type to the job. If you have someone who is creative and tends to find different ways to do things then you probably shouldn’t have them work in accounting. There is a word for “creative” accountants….inmate. Similarly, it should not surprise you that the profession with the highest percentage of people with a foot fetish is shoe salesman.
In today's dynamic political landscape, success isn't solely determined by experience or tenure. Instead, when individuals pursue elected offices that align with their inherent personality types and existing skill sets, they often thrive, even as newcomers. When a person’s abilities and characteristics match the demands of public service this fosters higher engagement, quicker adaptation, and superior performance. Studies show that such alignment can lead to innovative policymaking and sustained electoral success, regardless of prior familiarity with the office.
Imagine an analytical introvert transitioning from policy analysis to city council; their natural inclination toward problem solving and focused deliberation allows them to excel quickly, even without years in elected office. Fundamental skills are easily adaptable to new settings, which leads to success. A community organizer with strong communication abilities might seamlessly pivot to state legislature, applying persuasion and relationship building expertise to pass bills from the outset. Studies confirm that certain personality traits and skills predict performance in leadership roles more reliably than experience alone. For instance, in public administration, officials with high needs to skills fit report elevated success, such as voter satisfaction and re-election rates. This alignment minimizes skill gaps; newcomers don't start from scratch but build on foundational competencies, accelerating effectiveness.
How does one determine if there is a fit? A candidate’s rhetoric on its face rarely gives deep insight into the personality of the individual. Sadly, some seek elected office for the opportunity to govern others. Power and control are the motivation regardless of intrinsic abilities. Often these types are revealed when examining their life story where, if they lack control in their personal lives then they seek it elsewhere. Sometimes, people who say they want the job don’t really want the work, they want the power.
Ultimately, success of a candidate in elected offices hinges on them being well fitted for the task and not necessarily their experience. They can have years of experience at being bad at their job. Candidates who tout their experience signal that you should examine their accomplishments. If the incumbent says they never voted to raise your taxes then you should ask if your taxes went up. If they voted not to raise taxes but your taxes increased then from your perspective the incumbent failed. Do you want to elect someone who has repeatedly failed?
Another classic marker for incompetency is when the incumbent candidate lists all the things they will do when re-elected, which is basically admitting they failed to do those things during their tenure. Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, the people who can solve a problem must be different than the people who created the problem.
Often we select candidates based on whether we “like” them because that is the normal, human thing to do. It helps to step back and think analytically, to examine each requirement and their demonstrated abilities or inabilities.
Think of people as tools in a toolbox, each with a special and unique skill set. You can then assess the job requirements and then pick the tool best suited. Ask yourself what skills are needed for a particular office and then consider which candidate has more of those skills. Break the problem of selecting the right candidate into pieces and then consider each one to arrive at the best decision.
It’s just common sense.
Oct. 3rd, 2025