Why do people like Ross Perot, Donald Trump, and Carly Fiorina think running a company qualifies them to run a country?

Its funny how many candidates and how many voters believe this without really thinking about it. When you run a company you are essentially a dictator. You may ask for opinions from advisors but in the end what you say goes. That attitude doesn;t work when you are the chief executive of a democracy and in fact will probably backfire
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/carly-fiorina-hillary-clinton/index.html

They are accustomed to people doing what they say and they have forgotten that they do it because they are paid. They don’t know what it means to negotiate with people who are not beholden to them.

Its funny how many candidates and how many voters believe this without really thinking about it. When you run a company you are essentially a dictator. You may ask for opinions from advisors but in the end what you say goes. That attitude doesn;t work when you are the chief executive of a democracy and in fact will probably backfire http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/carly-fiorina-hillary-clinton/index.html
I think that your comment is on the mark. I guess dictators tend to have an over-inflated view of their efficacy, since they are able to do whatever they decide, without regard to others' views. This doesn't work in a democracy. So dictators often wind up becoming the law, and getting rid of any opposition. As far as the appeal of these candidates to voters, many voters just want to sit back while the govt makes their lives better, so imagining that someone with business sense will magically make the economy better, is appealing. Also, we are all acutely aware of the dysfunction of our govt, currently, so candidates who are a part of this relatively dysfunctional process are not as appealing as someone from outside of the political system.
Its funny how many candidates and how many voters believe this without really thinking about it. When you run a company you are essentially a dictator. You may ask for opinions from advisors but in the end what you say goes. That attitude doesn;t work when you are the chief executive of a democracy and in fact will probably backfire http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/opinions/carly-fiorina-hillary-clinton/index.html
I think there's another aspect though. CEOs are after profit. And some of them will do whatever it takes, think whatever needs thinking, to gain profit. And there IS something, I'm not going to say good, but maybe efficacious about that attitude. And people like that WHEN it's something positive. So a CEO might be profit driven to pursue climate change technology, not because s/he agrees with scientists, but because there's money to be made. Same with supporting gay issues. Their greed for money and profit can sometimes override their ideology. And Trump's a good example (maybe) of that.

The leader of a company is the idea person to run the country. First of all they don’t tell people what to do. That’s crazy. If that was true, they would have no reason to have meetings. And they have lots of meeting.
Next, look at the structure of a company. You have several departments. You have the sales, marketing, personal. IT, bookkeeping, accounting, manufacturing, legal and many other depending on the business.
The CEO has to keep all the departments working together even though they work in entirely different trades. Then the CEO has to answer to the Board of Directors. This is a lot like how our government is supposed to be running.
I think you are looking at the Wall Street operations, which are politically connected to Washington and are part of the problem.