This analysis started with the question: What is the profile of a manager who performs well in public companies? The need for reform in public companies is obvious, and it is essential to define as accurately as possible the managerial profile that will bring value in a context of accelerated transformation.
According to the Expert Forum reportconflicting objectives: one is to make a profit and the other is to provide a service in the public interest. For example, CFR Călători provides both a transport service on the market and a public service (that is less polluting and safer). This duality requires a clear functional separation of profit-making activities from public service activities, with transparent budgetary funding for the public service component. Subsidies should be for consumers, not to cover the inefficiencies of state-owned companies.”
We need skills and performance in public companies just as much as we do in private companies. Through this article, I contribute to defining the profile of a manager who can perform well in public companies, based on the present analysis and using the private sector as a source of comparison.
Although this is not a scientific study, I have conducted an exploratory analysis based on public data, focusing on the top 30 public and private companies*, with 2024 as the year of reference. I divided the companies into two categories—profitable and loss-making—and compared their management profiles with those of private companies, using the same criterion (profit/loss) as a benchmark.
The analysis was conducted with Notebook LM, an AI research assistant, based on uploaded documents, using advanced natural language processing models. Documents uploaded: CVs of executives (CEO or equivalent) available on official company websites, LinkedIn profiles, and biographical information extracted from media interviews**.
A manager’s performance can be evaluated, among other things, through an essential criterion: the company’s profit or loss. However, this is not the only benchmark.
We asked Angela Roșca the Taxation Task Force, to explain the reasons why a company, whether public or private, may incur losses:
Situations in which a company incurs losses – possible interpretations
1. Losses justified by major strategic investments
Companies undergoing rapid expansion – through capital investments in hospitals, factories, warehouses, advertising campaigns, etc. – may record temporary losses until revenues exceed operating expenses, depreciation costs, and liabilities (e.g., interest). Key indicator: a significant increase, above the industry average, even if the company is operating at a loss, in a generally profitable sector.
2. Losses associated with stagnation or decline in a context of overall growth
When most companies in the industry are profitable, but one company is stagnating ordeclining, losses may indicate possible management inefficiency or a lack of strategic adaptation.
3. Losses caused by the general context of the industry (crisis/recession)
If the entire industry is in decline (economic or structural), it is natural for most companies to operate at a loss. However, there may be exceptions—companies that are profitable due to a clear competitive advantage: operational efficiency, strong brand, or niche positioning.
4. Losses caused by arbitrary external regulations
Sometimes, losses do not reflect poor management performance, but rather unpredictable external interventions, such as:
- Price caps during the pandemic + suspension of payment obligations for consumers (e.g. the energy sector)
- The minimum turnover tax introduced in 2024 (IMCA), which affected companies in industries with low margins (2–3% net profit)
5. Isolated losses in a generally profitable industrial context
If a company is suffering losses in an otherwise profitable industry, further analysis is required: this may indicate inefficient management or even fraudulent practices. Note: many loss-making state-owned companies fall into this category, while profitable ones often operate as monopolies.
Given this caveat, it is important not to draw absolute conclusions about the correlation between company performance and manager profiles, but we have identified some trends that may allow us to better define the managerial profile in public companies.
Managerial performance in public companies seems to be influenced by previous experience in the private sector: 85% of managers in profitable public companies come from the private sector, compared to only 30% in loss-making companies. If we include previous experience in the private
sector as a criterion, to make it relevant, it would be useful to be more specific: e.g. a company with a minimum turnover of €20 million in the last three years.
In general, the technical profile is dominant in all three categories, but private companies tend to combine technical expertise with commercial and financial expertise, as well as international exposure, to a greater extent. Expertise in commercial strategies and revenue generation is important in public companies that: 1. can generate their own revenue; 2. need to ensure economic efficiency without relying entirely on subsidies; 3. operate in a competitive or semi-liberalised environment (between a state monopoly and a market that is completely open to competition).
What types of expertise are commonly found in profitable private companies but are lacking (or underrepresented) in the managerial profiles of public companies?
1. Leadership in digital transformation and large-scale technological innovation
Private companies often have leaders with experience in rapidly adopting new technologies and implementing transformative digital solutions. In the public sector, such initiatives are rarer or limited in scope.
2. Industrial diversity and professional adaptability
Managers in the private sector often have experience in several industries, which gives them a broader strategic perspective. In contrast, many leaders in public companies have a career path concentrated in a single sector, which can limit their ability to integrate best practices from other areas.
3. Solid expertise in strategic financial management
Private company leaders are often familiar with profitability optimisation, advanced financial modelling, and long-term investment planning—skills that go beyond simply managing projects with public funding.
4. Experience in leading major organisational or technological transformations
There are frequent cases in which managers in the private sector have led complex change processes with a significant impact on the structure, culture, or efficiency of the organisation— experience that is rarely found in public companies.
5. Crisis management skills and organisational resilience
In the private sector, economic instability and sudden changes require the rapid development of response and adaptation skills, which are often insufficiently utilised in the public sector.
6. A clear focus on sustainability and governance – ESG
Profitable private companies are increasingly integrating ESG principles – Environment (transition to green energy, waste recycling, etc.), Social (fair working conditions and employee safety, involvement in local communities, transparency regarding the social impact of products/services, etc.), Governance (transparent and accountable board of directors, ethics and integrity in decision-making, avoidance of conflicts of interest and corruption, clear and accurate financial reporting in business strategies). Public sector companies often linger in one of the early stages of this process.
In order to obtain a complete picture of the managerial profile, it is necessary to include essential personal dimensions such as cognitive and strategic skills, interpersonal and leadership skills, adaptability, along with ethical and personal responsibility.
Therefore, adapting the recruitment criteria for managers in public companies to the six areas of expertise mentioned above, plus the conclusions of the comparative analysis, can contribute to the selection of managers capable of transforming public companies into high-performing, strategically oriented organisations that are adapted to the challenges generated by the economic context and the accelerated pace of change.
The reform of state-owned companies must continue!
* Information about public companies was collected from the AMEPIP website, based on turnover, so as to be relevant (minimum turnover of one million lei), supplemented with other information
from the public domain. It should be noted that on the AMEPIP website, companies reporting losses are listed as having zero profit. Data on private companies was collected from the risco website.
** The quality of the analysis may be influenced by the quantity and quality of information in public CVs and other available information about these individuals
Article published in Economedia, you can find it here.
