Comments on: Is Dullness Destiny?

By: Jim Oher

Jim Oher — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:50:12 +0000

please go to blog post on July 4th for a comment from CEO Peter Mattoon
I will comment on all your comments this week. Thank you again for your input!

By: Steve Mosley

Steve Mosley — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:25:49 +0000

I am going to take a different tack than John P. did in his excellent post. I need to remind myself that there are thousands of CEOs across the country, and tens of thousands across the world. So I don’t want to generlaize too broadly in my thoughts. I respect the research and agree with much of its findings. As I think back on CEOs of companies I worked for (and considering I am one myself now), many of those traits mentioned were present in these individuals. If there is no correlation then, to people skills and success in the CEO world, then I suggest it may be due to many CEOs settling for good, versus great. Not to be trite with that phrase, but when success is measured at the CEO position by return to shareholder, which it is in the vast majority of companies, then what is the motivation to reach a little deeper and become highly skilled in human behavior? I suggest it is the exceptional CEO who is not satisfied with just being an excellent strategist and financial analyst. It is the rare one who wants to be excellent as a communicator, coach, influencer, mentor, motivator as well. After all, that is asking a lot of anyone, right? So as coaches, we would always love the opportunity to work with a CEO who is willing to be challenged, provoked, and encouraged to develop these skills as well. But I believe that for us, these assignments will be just as rare as the CEO willing to tackle them.

By: John P

John P — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:51:12 +0000

I haven’t read Brooks’ opinion piece but I can get the jest of it from the posting and the two comments. First, I note that the post and the comments don’t really agree with one another. In fact, they all seem to take this topic into far ranging fields. However, I tend to agree with the poster here. From my experience the CEOs and Executive VPs are not your ‘best executors’. The are not always the ones that demonstrate functional prowess. I mean, simply look at the career path of CEOs. Nardelli leaves GE and heads up Home Depot. The previous CEO from Southland Corporation goes to head up Blockbuster, and then to Pearl Eye Centers. Do you think its because these guys knew more about these businesses than ALL of the people who worked at these companies long before the CEO jumped ship? Of course not. These are political lions. I’m not saying they have great people skills, I would suggest that they lack the humilty and sincerity for that. They are political people. They conjole, persuade, charm . . . manipulate. They have a resume and can exploit it. They surround themselves with ‘yes-people’ and preach how important dissent is, while surreptitiously expunging the inner circle of any dissenters. So, I think Jim is correct in this case. As stated by other responders, coaching provides some particular challenges because these folks are notoriously tone-deaf.

By: Steven K Levine

Steven K Levine — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:19:10 +0000

It is not surprising that ‘people skills’ do not correlate with CEO success. They are employed to get positive results, regardless of whether their subordinates are abused and exhausted or inspired and energetic.

The type of coach chosen probably depends on the ‘people skills’ of the coach.

We disagree with Brooks on ‘people skills.’ Great leaders get results and leave the people they work with inspired and energetic.

By: ken

ken — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:00:52 +0000

Of all the traits in Brooks’ latter bucket, I’d opine that the only one listed that is essential for CEOs is “openness to new experiences.” The very trait itself defines what it means to lead. Other than the customary R&D division, which mission it is to be experimental by design and demand, the person at the top is required to lead the charge and bushwack into territory where no person has strode before. It was admirable years ago; but it is required in today’s business climate.

Between “openness to new experiences” and “persistence” (assuming the CEO possesses intelligence and business acumen), the other traits can be relegated to competencies that c-level subordinates and senior/middle-managers must master. Don’t misunderstand, it’d be ideal for the organization if the CEO possesses the full monty, but if nothing else he or she MUST be both bushwacker and have unwavering persistence.

As for which coach, or which coaching style, makes the more effective impact (or elicits the more measurable response) — that depends on the leader being coached. There are those whose arrogance and ego will tolerate advice only from those who’ve walked in similar shoes. Conversely, other top leaders may be more responsive to a methodical staging of their expected behavior based on contracts and agreed outcomes. But I would not expect anyone who has risen to this level or position in any corporate enterprise or organization — and who presumably possesses some if not most of Brooks’ proferred traits from both buckets — to allow their behavior to be shaped too markedly simply because we’ve now paired the meat powder closer to the bell.