David Brooks glosses a recent study by three researchers about what traits make a good CEO:
They found that strong people skills correlate loosely or not at all with being a good C.E.O. 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.
What mattered, 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.
Oh yeah? Then how come I'm not a CEO? I have lousy people skills and I excel at attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours. I'd be perfect.
Ah, well, I had my chance and turned it down. I'm more the executive officer type. For what it's worth, though, I think the three researchers are right. Obviously CEOs vary considerably in their people skills, and being charismatic and sociable doesn't hurt. But figuring out what needs to be done and then having the persistence to keep hounding everyone to do it is the real key, and it's harder than it sounds. Vision may be important, but execution is essential.
POSTSCRIPT: But what rock did Brooks' closing paragraph come out from under? CEOs.... people skills....persistence....yada yada yada....BANG! America is about to go to hell because Washington is forcing CEOs to become more charismatic. Or something. WTF?