The parallels seem unending

I am currently reading an interview with an architect and friend of mine. He is the CEO of a large International design firm.

I could not help but pause at this question and response:

Quote:

---

Certainly, not everyone is cut out to be an executive. In your opinion, which specific traits increase the likelihood that a person will be a successful executive and
what type of person should avoid aspiring to be an executive?

The traits that increase the likelihood of being a successful executive are the same ones
that make a successful leader: a positive attitude, integrity and the ability to inspire.

---

Sure wish that extended to politics.

In our politics, many have the first as long as you look at it in the light of their view of governance .

A few have the third to some extent, again considering your personal outlook .

Very few have the second , it is seemingly absent in a majority of those who seek office, be it local or National.

Odd that his list did not contain what I would think #1 — knowing what the hell his business does and how to make it efficient.

You wouldn't believe the feel good nonsense that permeates big corporations. Most CEO's can't take more than 10 years of mouthing feel-good bs and end up retiring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wacojoe

Odd that his list did not contain what I would think #1 — knowing what the hell his business does and how to make it efficient.

---

In this case, he is both founder of the firm and a practicing architect. That said there is a whole "school" of thought ( from the Harvard Business School) that says any effective manager can manage any company without experience in that industry. While counter intuitive to me, I have to admit to knowing many cases that is a valid position. I would limit the broadness of their claim to at least come from a similar industry. I think it near impossible to go from retail to manufacturing or finance to hospitality and be immediately effective.

You have touched on something I find interesting. The essential obligation to shareholders that Joe eluded to is the same that makes Harvard MBA's qualified - and often effective CEO's. It is to understand that everything the corporation does is to serve the shareholders, and those decisions are made more easily by someone who cares about brand more than legacy and shareholder return more than the people and their communities. Genuine concern for the business and people is replaced by impersonal policies and feel-good benefits aimed at keeping people quietly obedient.

The tough decisions about cost cutting etc. are much more difficult for the people who built the business from the ground up, with the help of people and their communities. Heartless plicks who only care about the bottom line make better CEO's if you are a shareholder.

A very famous man in the world of manufacturing; Dr. W. Edwards Deming who was the power behind the Japanese becoming the recognized leaders in manufacturing, once said "take care of quality and everything else falls into place. He could have just as accurately said take care of the customer and everything else falls into place. Everyone in business has both internal and external customers and understanding how to focus on them is key to success. A "master" of that principle in one industry can certainly transfer that to another. It isn't necessary, or even advisable. for a mechanic to lead GM.

If you are a CEO who didn't rise thru the ranks or even the industry, you are most likely in a big firm. There are still plenty of medium and small firms where the leaders are experienced in their firms and industries. I for one would have never felt comfortable making my decisions in "my" business without the benefit of applicable experience and knowing the people who would carry out those decisions. The "big" board room was where these decisions were reported; when they started to flow the other way is when things often went wrong.

I didn't start to dislike my job until I was drug into the big board room. My success to that point was because of our people, their reputation, and our ability to win and keep customers (our greatest successes were with private clients even though I like to complain about our public customers - they were generally bad business partners). The big board room assumes those to be givens and has other priorities- and my personal feelings toward the people and customers who helped me get there kept me from staying. I couldn't tolerate helping a-holes who didn't own a pair of boots and couldn't assemble their own hardhat.

My experience with Corporate-think is bad and I am very happy I broke free. My mental health and self esteem depended on it.

Oh, and I do remember "quality circles". Is that kind of thinking what killed Japan? :shrug: