
In Praise of Dullness - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1
======
jnorthrop
I don't understand where the study he sites leads to the conclusion that good
corporate leaders should be dull. He mentions: "The traits that correlated
most powerfully with success were attention to detail, persistence,
efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours."

That doesn't mean someone is dull. They could be funny, engaging and
thoughtful and still be detail-oriented and hard working. Brooks is just
playing off of stereotypes to reach his conclusion.

~~~
ellyagg
True. Wouldn't you have to say that Steve Jobs has all those traits? Does
anyone think he's dull?

------
rml
Another one in the same (dull) vein by Brooks: 'Genius, the Modern View':
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01brooks.html>

It seems that Mr. Brooks likes to do at least some of his editorializing based
on actual research. We need more like him.

------
biohacker42
Good article but I found the last paragraph to be wildly speculative and not
particularly well thought out.

------
smanek
This essay seems particularly relevant (and contradictory):
<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/stratified-by-c.html>

~~~
req2
I think that two different cultures are being discussed here.

> I expect that my life experience constitutes an extremely biased sample of
> the power elite. I don't have to deal with the executives of arbitrary
> corporations, or form business relationships with people I never selected. I
> just meet them at gatherings and talk to the interesting ones.

I would be more interested in a study of CEOs that looked at the kind of
company being run. I expect the subset of CEOs that deal with transhumanism or
new technologies to have a more winnowing route to the top than the CEOs of
larger or more traditional companies - a Sears can only innovate so much, and
even with a looter CEO can manage to stay afloat.

------
req2
> On the contrary, a study by Ulrike Malmendier and Geoffrey Tate found that
> C.E.O.’s get less effective as they become more famous and receive more
> awards.

I can't help but think of Buffett's investors-as-coin-flippers.

> After ten flips there would be approximately 260,000 people that had
> successfully called ten consecutive coin flips. After 20 flips, based purely
> on chance, there would be approximately 250 people that had called 20
> consecutive coin flips - a seemingly miraculous feat.

from <http://www.investorhome.com/coinflip.htm>

------
fleaflicker
_"...extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience did not
correlate well with C.E.O. success. Instead, what mattered was emotional
stability and, most of all, conscientiousness — which means being dependable,
making plans and following through on them."_

------
ratsbane
Brooks' article greatly simplifies CEO personality traits as compared to
different types of roles they must fill (growing a small company, turning
around a failing business, etc.) just as the original article Brooks cited
(<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=972446>) is reporting on
data collected mostly by private equity companies to take charge of companies
they own. The traits of that sort of CEO may be quite different from a startup
CEO, a CEO who is hired to pump and dump, etc.

------
gaius
A surprising conclusion, for the NYT.

~~~
gabrielroth
Brooks is one of their designated conservative columnists. Don't expect the
op-ed page to sing with one voice.

------
mildweed
Obama is the US's CEO. Maybe he should be more dull.

