There have been a number of articles in the general press, recently, attempting to determine if there is some set of unique characteristics possessed by CEOs. Typically, these are personal traits that others can presumably learn to emulate.
But an interesting, fairly new trend is the enumeration of developmental conditions or circumstances that seem to disproportionately produce CEOs. One particular argument that has been making the rounds for some little while is that many of them are dyslexic. The explanation is offered that this condition equips them in many ways for the role, including with the ambition to defy the odds in occupying it.
On the other hand, argues an article from USA Today, it may be that first-borns tend to become chief executives. The piece cites a study that claims to have found that first-borns are more intelligent than their siblings. It also quotes survey results that purport to show that most CEOs are from this group.
But, as we have seen before, simply because a study seems to suggest so, the issue of which sibling is smarter is far from closed. There are too many questions outstanding about what intelligence really is, not to mention how reliable research is, to close the matter on the basis of this.
Moreover, it is not established that superior intelligence is a requirement for the top job. Indeed, the argument can be made that raw intelligence, in and of itself, is a disqualification for senior management; those whose careers are built principally on that characteristic should build those careers in technical or specialist fields, and leave general management to those better suited for it.
But we’ll submit that interesting topic to closer examination, later. For now, let’s take another look at the CEO as oldest sibling argument. It turns out that the newspaper had to conduct two surveys to support the article’s thesis; the first one wasn’t sufficiently satisfying, producing only a 2 out of 5 proportion of first-born CEOs, a not particularly remarkable and perhaps entirely meaningless result. So much for the research.
Now, consider the evidence offered in the piece as to why first-borns should be expected to dominate CEO positions. This, from a psychologist who studies issues related to birth-order:
They are often more extroverted, confident, assertive, authoritarian, dominant, inflexible, conformist, politically conservative, task-oriented, conscientious, disciplined, defensive about errors, and fearful of losing position and rank.”
Now, there are some CEO-qualifying characteristics for you: a real mix of vices and virtues – it just seems that it is the former that dominate. I’ll bet this psychologist isn’t a first-born.
If, as an employee, you have seen CEOs who seem to have attained their positions due to characteristics like these, would you, as an owner or director, want to maintain them there specifically for those same traits?
—
Today’s tip: Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership recently offered some observations about this USA Today article; click here to get his enlightening take on it.
—
Have you noticed the “Sphere: Related Content” icon below? Click on it to see a pop-up window with content from other blogs and media related to the topic of today’s post. Give it a try now (and while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe)!
Technorati Tags: characteristic, CEO, trait, dyslexic, ambition, USA Today, first-born, chief executive, intelligence, research, management, career, general management, employee, owner, director, Wally Bock, Three Star Leadership
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
I find it much more fruitful to concentrate on the developmental process rather than pre-dispositions or traits. If you believe, as I do, that leadership is an apprentice trade, then it certainly makes sense to try to enrich the on-the-job part of learning. The best way to do that seems to be through developmental assignments.
In other words, people who grow up into a job seem to do so through a series of developmental experiences. Warren Bennis was on to this when he looked at the role of what he called “crucibles” in development. It’s a variant on the “ten mission rule” that fighter pilots who survive at least ten missions have achieved a level of skill that increases their likelihood of winning and surviving.
When matching people to roles (any role, not just CEO), there are three areas for consideration:
1) Do they value the work enough to commit to it? If not, they will not be willing to apply their energy to it over time.
2)Do they have the necessary skilled knowledge? If not, this can be changed through training or experience.
3) Do they have raw problem solving capability at the level of the role? If they have more, they will become bored. If they have less, they will not be capable.
CEO roles come in a variety of sizes. The CEO of a chain of 3 restaurants is widely different than being the CEO of Walmart. It requires a different level of problem solving capability.
Wally, the irony of the post’s title is expressed in your comment: “people who grow up into a job seem to do so through a series of developmental experiences.” Focusing on growth as a worker and manager, and on faciliting that growth, is certainly the approach to take, rather than attempting to divine a peculiar – even nightmarish – phenomic predisposition to management success.
Thank you for your insight, and, as always, for your work.
Michelle,
Thank you for your visit and your observations. I like your points. As you say, #2 can generally be dealt with in one way or another. #1 is of key importance, and it is of at least equal importance for hiring or promoting managers/directors to find ways to determine it. #3 is in this general category, and reflects the core duty of a manager.
Excellent list and comment. Thank you for it!