What makes a good CEO?

That was the headline of a recent comment piece. But that is not the real thrust of the article. We examine the piece.

Source: Today, 23/5/9, p.28
Headline: What makes a good CEO?
Writer: David Brooks

Quote1
...Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen recently completed a study called Which CEO Characteristics and Abilities Matter? ... They found that strong people skills correlate loosely or not at all with being a good CEO. ... What mattered ... were execution and organisational skills. ...

Comment1
Well, that is the finding of one study. But is this the general case? We need corroboration.

Quote2
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 CEOs were not the flamboyant visionaries. They were humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls who found the thing they were really good at and did it over and over again. That same year Murray Barrick, Michael Mount and Timothy Judge surveyed a century's worth of research into business leadership. They too found that extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience did not correlate well with CEO success. Instead, what mattered was emotional stability and, most of all, conscientiousness -- which means being dependable, making plans and following through on them. ...

Comment2
We have other studies with similar findings. We are ready to generalise.

Quote3
What these traits do add up to is a certain ideal personality type. The CEOs that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit uni-dimensional. ...

Comment3
This is the generalisation. But what is important for the real argument in this comment piece is what is not well correlated with the successful CEO: strong people skills, flamboyant visionaries, extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience.

Quote4
For [this] reason, business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leaders possess precisely those talents -- charisma, charm, personal skills -- that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution. ...

Comment4
Political talents are precisely those that make for less-than-successful CEOs.

Quote5
We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. ... When Washington is a profit centre, CEOs are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge. -- NYT.

Comment5
Finally, we come to the real argument of this comment piece.

Premiss1: If (politicians interpose in management), then (CEOs adopt political traits)
Premiss2: If (CEOs adopt political traits), then (less successful CEOs)
Premiss3: If (less successful CEOs), then (nation loses competitive edge)
Conclusion1: Hence, If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [To Premiss4]

Premiss4: If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: Not-(nation loses competitive edge) [suppressed]
Conclusion2: Hence, Not-(politicians interpose in management) [suppressed]

The real, but unstated, thrust of this comment piece is that politicians should not interpose themselves in industry management.

END