What Sets Successful CEOs Apart
hbr.org
hbr.org
'Decisive' Ok, but are they more decisive than a baseball coach?
'Engaging for Impact' More or less than a car salesperson?
'Adapting Proactively' Homeless persons adapt, and can be surprisingly resourceful, too.
'Delivering Reliably' Most manufacturing managers have this trait, too. If they don't, they aren't manufacturing managers for long.
From the results of the study, one would infer that if they adopt these 4 traits, they will become CEOs. But that's laughable. These 4 traits are supplemental and supportive to getting there, but not causal. In my opinion, a CEO needs to be driven. They need to be going somewhere that they can convince a lot of other different types of people to follow them to. They have to have a sense of agency that leads them to want to be in charge. Only then do those 4 behaviors make a difference.
This article is like taking a bunch of measurements from professional athletes to determine what made them athletes, ignoring that all the physical abilities and training could not get them there without the drive to achieve. That has to come first.
You find this in lots of other areas with similar characteristics. All "theories of history," etc.
Is this written as a sarcasm to the business writing? ;)
The problem is that what are really just "somewhat interesting observations" tend to be sold (or interpreted) as much more "actionable" than they really are. That is, the implication is that if you go out and do these four things, you'll be successful too.
Seems like 99% of business and self-help advice boils down to this formula.
It seems to be more about Management Feels - up to Board level - and not so much about learning how to get things done.
If you can sell a combination of subtle narcissistic flattery with enthusiastic promises of predictability, control, and guaranteed success your books will do extremely well - even if the advice is simplistic harmful nonsense.
More or less than most athletes eyeing an Olympic gold?
Honestly, this would have been much more interesting to me if they'd simply asked these CEOs what was it that produced the drive to lead a company.
The article is about what distinguishes successful CEOs, not just what traits lead to people becoming CEOs.
>Don't they need a control group of randomly selected persons?
>In my opinion, a CEO needs to be driven...
I read the study differently. That is, less successful CEOs were the control. So, the idea is that whatever traits led to people landing in the CEO role (including, possibly, being driven); the traits outlined were those that set apart the successful CEOs.
Of course, now the question shifts to how exactly do you define good performance. But in the end, that is all that matters.
The Chief Executive is responsible for performance, not for working long hours or making technically brilliant plans.
How did you reach this conclusion? It is as dumb as reading an article stating that good doctors have an attention for detail and then thinking that you could get a job as a doctor just by demonstrating attention for detail. The article just states that for people who already are CEO's these traits are important and that boards should consider them more, this makes it clear that these traits are not the only things necessary in order for someone to be considered for a CEO position. It even notes in the beginning that most boards undervalues these traits meaning that that someone who focuses on different traits should have greater success in attaining a CEO position.
To take your analogy a bit further, CEOs like doctors aren't chosen because they already have these traits.
You become a doctor by graduating medical school, and if you have good attention to detail then you'll be a more successful doctor.
CEOs simply emerge into the role, and if they are also decisive, engaging, proactive and reliable then they're more successful than if they were not.
You know, I think the most valuable thing I got from my business degree is being able to precisely identify the exact flavors of bullshit getting passed around in the business world.
> A detailed sample of 930 CEO candidates across the companies of all sizes and covering 19 out of 20 NAICS industry sectors which we compared to other c-suite executives.
Did you read the article? They were looking at what makes some existing CEOs more successful than other CEOs. Nowhere did they say these traits were what allowed people to become CEOs. In fact they kind of said the opposite - boards tend to over-index on different traits, like overt confidence and extroverted charisma, when hiring.
Sure. Decisiveness, adaptability, reliability, etc. are great.
But the biggest problem is when the CEO is decisive, the CEO is engaging the team, the CEO is adopting to environment and the CEO is reliable - but the CEO is doing it all wrong. I.e., the CEO just doesn't have a clue.
As Napoleon said (and many others): whoever is industrious and stupid should be shot on the spot.
The best CEOs are the one who are lazy and very smart. Lazy? Because they will delegate their vision to other people. Smart? The CEO will have the right vision and delegate to the right people.
A lazy CEO does things like not supply payslip information because he couldn't be bothered, or spends the afternoons watching sportsball next to his colleagues who are working.
> Because they will delegate their vision to other people.
Other people means you, even if it's totally outside your area of competence, but rather CEO's.
Not saying this is the way to go. But to this day, I am surprised it worked out.
The article is interesting, and there probably is generally value in the traits outlined but, no discrete set of characteristics is deterministic. Not only are other personality factors involved, but it also depends on the product, team, etc. The lazy CEO might be perfect when paired with the workaholic CTO.
Or, as others have put it, it's complicated.
There's also the fact that if you spend most of your time dealing with problems, you spend too much time talking to the screwups in your organization. Spending time with the people who aren't having problems is important. They're the ones that can move things forward.
If you confuse correlation with causation, you could say that it's better to be a drop out than graduate from Ivy League
Also, interesting.
While it may seem obvious that a decisive leader is a better leader, it's not necessarily a trait that floats to the top of the list. The same goes for all of these traits.
I have had the opportunity to work under leadership that exhibits all of these traits and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the combination is rare and it is very effective.
2. Calculated risk taking (Meg Whitman buying paypal in 2002, Zuckerberg buying Instagram in 2013 when everyone said it was too expensive ) In both instances, although there were risks, they were still relatively small compared to the parent company.
3. the business itself being a success. A good CEO can only do so much if the business is not viable or is struggling due to various macro factors outside of the CEO's control.
4. All-around good execution (Jeff Bezos comes to mind here)
Sure there are anomalies, but in most cases being a CEO for a growing business in a growing industry rather than some unique talent.
That brings up another factor that is probably more important than luck: other people's belief that the CEO will be successful.
There are likely some universals, but those are the least useful areas to consider and the most hand wavy.
Do you dimwits understand the general concept of research at all?
Example Integrity Respect
You have just created a narcissist asshole who blames everyone else for their failure before they move on to their next 'I am a successful CEO venture'.
I teched for an HR firm years ago. Company lunch every day. People spent half the time on lunch vs going out and talked with their co-workers usually about work or took care of the water cooler talk then. It was just one of the checkboxes on the list of reasons not to leave. It was definitely a profit for the company in the end.
- me, MBA
While there is certainly no “one size fits all” approach, focusing on these essential behaviors will improve both a board’s likelihood of choosing the right CEO—and an individual leader’s chances of succeeding in the role."
Somewhat self serving for the authors research/advisory company IMO and surprisingly non specific based on the confidence of the headline
"I say, Langley, HBR is pure bosh. They've no respect at all for proper breeding, and their attitude towards Mr. Spencer's impeccable theories is shocking, really."
You'd think they'd disparage education, money, and connections, instead of inborn character and aristocratic bloodline... (Unless, of course, you _do_ need education, money, and connections, and they want some safer strawman to knock down.)
So i guess the answer- besides CEO-people manipulation skills is too think ahead of societys development, anticipate future demands, and invest there, while ignoring the crowd yelling insanity.
And the answer is: they don't read hbr.org