It has long been presumed that the CEO is so key to an organization as to be, effectively, vital to its very functioning. Indeed, many highly regarded observers have strongly made the case that not only is a singular individual leader essential to the success of an organization, but that there is hardly any point in the organization’s existence except as a mechanism for amplifying and expressing that leadership.
This view has been warmly – even eagerly – received by the general public. Many of us seem to want an age-old heroic figure on whom to project our hopes and invest our faith. Others of us, perhaps, just find it easier to conceptualize the enterprise as the institutionalization of its boss, rather than as an abstraction conceived and directed by its owners.
Indeed, when an iconic American CEO became seriously ill recently, a major stock analyst found it prudent to issue a report that investors shouldn’t worry; the leader’s personality had already successfully been institutionalized inside the company. No need to sell off the stock. This is a company whose current good fortune, by the way, can be solely attributed neither to the visionary insight of this CEO nor to the inspired followership of an employee – but, arguably, to the clever idea of a consultant.
As it happens, the major way bosses typically provide a positive contribution in their organizations is not so much by making daring, awe-inspiring gambles, but by avoiding making mistakes. After all, of all the companies now lining up for government aid or to file petitions in bankruptcy court, how many of their CEOs have been viewed as inscrutably qualified, vital leaders by observers – not to mention by themselves – in the recent past?
Should we not, in point of fact, worry that their personalities had been successfully institutionalized inside their companies? Should you not worry if that is happening at yours? What might that, actually, suggest about the true vitality and dynamism of your organization?
—
Today’s tips: If you want to become a successful presenter around a conference table, you will want do all four of the things Steve Roesler suggests in his must-read post on the topic. My vote for the absolutely indispensable item is number three – and this is for presenting or speaking before all types of audiences. Which one gets your vote?
And if you want to become a profoundly successful business person or manager, you will ask yourself every one of the seven questions Michael Wade poses for you today. In particular, you will want to devote far more than cursory attention to number one, and ask it again every time you think you have the answer. The other questions, then, flow from number five – don’t you agree?
—
Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues – give it a try right now!
And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!
—
Technorati Tags: CEO, organization, leader, leadership, enterprise, boss, owner, American, investor, personality, company, visionary, insight, followership, employee, contribution, government, bankruptcy, presenter, conference, Steve Roesler, business, manager, Michael Wade
Sphere: Related Content


















3 Comments
I think this is a very good paper, rising an important problem.
It has to be analyzed perhaps in the frame of the MRA syndrome that has killed or degraded so many great institutions from the beginning of the times. Perhaps the Union of the Gardeners of Eden was the very first of these.
MRA- Means Replacing Aims- is an almost ubiquitous phenomenon, the organizations gets amnesic re. that aims for which it was created and its raison d’etre becomes the organization per se and its welfare.
A good, CEO is the one who stops this natural trend and focuses the activity of all members of the organization on the real aims- manufacturing, selling, services- new and new ones- and the organizations remains in a continuous state of healthy development.
As long as the CEO is a living, thinking, feeling, planning, organizing, stimulating creative human being.
Institutionalization of the CEO is kind of creation of a local memecracy in which the ideas of the leader are implemented and work as would the leader him(her)self.
Can such a memecracy take the place of the genuine leader? Not an easy problem, especially that the times are really bad, full of surprises, and the surprises have the nasty habit of being bad.
A wicked problem, very complex and demanding local and specific solutions. Just think about GM or Big Pharma, as examples.
Peter
Hello Peter,
I agree that a major element of an executive’s job is to establish an environment in which the purposes of the organization can be advanced with the greatest possible support from all sources, and the least friction from any of them.
As for institutionalizing such a CEO, I think it is a generally false ambition, particularly since in most organizations the CEO is not the owner. The problems we have with management and so-called “leadership” have their origin largely in this confusion about corporate governance.
Thanks for stopping by with this thoughtful contribution!
Thanks, dear Jim,
I think the very practice of leadership shows that in
many cases we have to develop a “Carlyle about heroes”
model of the great CEO’s. I know this is somewhat hyperbolic
but there are many legends and myths of the really providential
leaders of great organizations. Sometimes the reverse is true,
weak CEOs can be fatally destructive.
Post a Comment