Some sounds bytes from a recent David Brooks column in the NY Times.
- Traits like being a good listener, a good team builder, an enthusiastic colleague, a great communicator do not seem to be very important when it comes to leading successful companies.
- Organized, dogged, anal-retentive and slightly boring people are more likely to thrive [as C.E.O.s].
- . . . extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience [do] not correlate well with C.E.O. success.
- Methodical executives at successful companies just make the same old four-door sedan, but they make it better and better.
- The C.E.O.’s that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit unidimensional. They are often not the most exciting people to be around.
I’m going to take issue with Brooks’ use of the word leader.
The people described in his piece are NOT leaders. They are managers. The title Chief Executive Officer speaks for itself. A C.E.O. is the individual most responsible for executing the company’s plans. The researchers referenced in Brooks’ piece are correct in observing that successful C.E.O.s are people who can get things done, but they miss the mark when referring to those people as leaders.
Some leaders are good managers and some managers have leadership skills. The two skill sets are not interchangeable; they do not mean the same thing. Organizations need both types of individuals at the top.
Beside every charismatic leader, there is someone who can get the job done and beside every successful C.E.O. there is someone with his or her head in the clouds.
