What mattered [in making the most effective C.E.O.’s], it turned out, were execution and organizational skills. The traits that correlated most powerfully with success were attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours.
In other words, warm, flexible, team-oriented and empathetic people are less likely to thrive as C.E.O.’s. Organized, dogged, anal-retentive and slightly boring people are more likely to thrive.
These results are consistent with a lot of work that’s been done over the past few decades. In 2001, Jim Collins published a best-selling study called “Good to Great.” He found that the best C.E.O.’s were not the flamboyant visionaries. They were humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls who found one thing they were really good at and did it over and over again.
Greetings.
I have always liked this quote
[quote]And on the other hand, the material value is apt to undermine the manly character; so that it must be our work, in the issue, to examine what evidence there is of the effect of wealth on the minds of its possessors; also, what kind of person it is who usually sets himself to obtain wealth, and succeeds in doing so; and whether the world owes more gratitude to rich or to poor men, either for their moral influence upon it, or for chief goods, discoveries, and practical advancements. I may, however, anticipate future conclusions so far as to state that in a community regulated only by laws of demand and supply, but protected from open violence, the persons who become rich are, generally speaking, industrious, resolute, proud, covetous, prompt, methodical, sensible, unimaginative, insensitive, and ignorant. The persons who remain poor are the entirely foolish, the entirely wise, the idle, the reckless, the humble, the thoughtful, the dull, the imaginative, the sensitive, the well-informed, the improvident, the irregularly and impulsively wicked, the clumsy knave, the open thief, and the entirely merciful, just, and godly person.[/quote]
from John Ruskin’s [url=”http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/ruskinj/last/chap4.htm”][i]Ad Valorem[/i][/url] (about a third of the way down if you want it in context).
I don’t say that it is good economics or sound “management”, but I like the sentiment.
regards,
JPB
JPB, and yet, Bill Gates was nothing if not imaginative, and he’s rich. John Ruskin would seem to be something of a cynic here.
Bill Gates is one of the least imaginative men in technology. Mr. Gates is quite bright and he works extremely hard, but he has purchased, modified, and marketed all the products that have made Microsoft a household name. Microsoft almost never develops anything imaginative from scratch. The marketing division at Microsoft is an imaginative group.
[blockquote] if it is leadership, let him govern diligently (Romans 12:8) [/blockquote]
The Biblical guidance for church leadership matches up with what Brooks describes in the business world: “resolute souls who found one thing they were really good at and did it over and over again.”