What Makes Successful CEOs Tick?

This past Friday, I met with a tennis coach who wanted advice about instilling the killer instinct in the high school children of ambitious parents. Did my work with successful CEOs have implications?

Two days prior to that, I met with a friend who has been extremely successful on every measure (in my book) of adult development. He reminisced about growing up as the only child of immigrant parents in a small rural Southern town. Here, he experienced persecution from which his parents could not protect him. He became known as the "Savage Italian." He boxed competitively but was lethargic in practice. Until he took a blow to the head. "Hit me once and I am focused." He has the killer instinct.

My career has focused on predicting performance among already highly successful executives. In 2004, I published an article describing the personality characteristics of successful CEOs. This fall, I have another paper coming out, comparing the personality, cognitive, and developmental characteristics of high and low integrity executives.

The findings of these studies pierce some myths about performance success but reinforce others. Highly successful CEOs do feel different from their early environments. "I always felt there was more for me. My oldest sister would say I was always different from the time I was about 10. I decided I would play football and go to college and I worked hard to do that." Or "I was just different from the rest of my family." These CEOs also have the desire and tenacity to focus on develop their ability. They take the time to practice and find mentors intent on improving their skills. Many grew up with fathers who were entrepreneurs. The CEOs started working at an early age, usually at age eight. They got in their hours of practice early and then built from there. They modeled their work ethics from their fathers but found mentors who nurtured their skill and got them to focus on their mistakes.

One CEO I assessed used to be an NFL player under Don Shula, who was just one in a series of powerful mentors with whom this CEO identified. This CEO had a vision of who he might become but it did not come directly from his father or an early coach; in fact, his high school coach said he would never get a football scholarship in college unless he could get his 40-yard dash to below 4 seconds and gain 40 pounds. By the end of that summer (without the aid of steroids), he had achieved both. With this ambition, he competed athletically, and, when cut from the team, in business, without end. This immersion in football and work gave him the core knowledge of his field.

What makes for uber-success? It is not sheer intellect, and it's not only social skill. It is, as Malcolm Gladwell defines talent, deliberate practice. Top performing executives spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously striving to improve their leadership skills. The recent research is summarized in two recent books: The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle; and Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, reviewed by David Brooks.

As one CEO in my integrity study put it:

In college, I was active in leadership, president of my fraternity, involved in class government associations, I had a good time in school, I did well in the subjects I liked and marginally well in subjects I didn't like, I accomplished a lot in terms of early leadership skills, learning what turns people on, learned a lot, I got a Ph.D. in the social sciences as far as I was concerned, put myself through school working as a bartender, I enjoyed the restaurant business and when I graduated I wanted to apply the skill sets I learned on the business side.

He learned to chunk individuals into different groups, based on demographic traits.The former NFL player had a similar ability to place individuals into chunks, defined by role. "The wide receiver got all the attention but when we played our attention was on the game." This ability to chunk information improves memory skills. Both CEOs were able to see leadership in deeper ways and quickly perceive its inner workings.

Then they practiced leading. As Brooks suggests, their practice was painstaking and error-focused. They learned more from their mistakes than their successes. Their mentors helped them develop a philosophy of leadership. They also provided a constant stream of feedback, correcting the smallest errors, pushing them to take on tougher challenges. By now they are each in their 50s and are redoing problems -- how do I build a brand; how do I build a cohesive team; how do I position a company strategically -- dozens and dozens of times. They are ingraining habits of thought they can call upon in order to understand or solve future problems.

As Malcolm Gladwell explains in talking about Outliers, the primary trait they possess is not a mysterious talent. It's the ability to develop a deliberate and strenuous practice routine. This is the talent that leads to great achievement. Genes and IQ may place a leash on our capacities and luck plays a role. Those factors aside, as Brooks points out, "the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior. It's not who you are, it's what you do."

Comments

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

Yes, indeed.

Let us all dream of a world in which it is true that talent and hard work, practice and perseverance, brain plasticity and a little bit of luck are really the ingredients of success on the path of a CEO.

And wouldn't it be wonderful, too?

[Rule Of Law]

And if they could pick up some ethics and empathy along the way, it surely wouldn't hurt.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

in a sense, my point was that it would already be the fulfiment of utopia itself if only that dream were true.

I'm not saying it's wrong to paint the ideal in those terms. Nor is it wrong to strive for it or work towards it. But it would be making fools of many hardworking people to claim that that's all there is to it.

There are many factors beyond that list. But even if you don't name them (or shame them), even if the only extra factor was simply random, it would still be a big mistake to act as if the list were complete. Because even if there's merely an extra random factor, there already results a big distortion in the interpretation of the achievements of people.

The point is that in the absence of real hard and good reasons, there is something arbitrary about hierarchies.

And that's exactly what people should realize, so that only the non-arbitrary hierarchies remain. Because the others do more harm than good.

[Social Construct]

This article has a definite "Bell Curve" smell about it. Everything the author states about successful, leader types can be echoed for driven and hard working poor or middle-income people. Usually, the single factor for the successful types rising to the top is that family incomes and connections (networking) plays a disproportionate role. I do not mean to take anything away from their work ethic but the fact remains their are millions of similar types not fortunate enough to have the affluent and privileged path to the top.

[Henry]

Take Fidel Castro for example. The son of a landed bourgeoisie and himself an attorney. He could certainly have blended in with the network to become a functioning aristocrat. Yet he chose a different path, You have to wonder where a person places his rudder with respect to these things.

[petef59]

One subject mentioned is an former NFL player. Gee, ya think maybe he got pampered and excused for shortcomings, along with whatever made for physical skills?

[MediaMentions]

Speaking of successful CEOs, how far do you think this girl will get? http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=5XUW391H7EL5&preview=article&linkid=38c8faf0-cb8a-444b-a33d-241f090ef5bb&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d

Best regards,
MediaMentions

[afrayedknot]

The description of the human brain as "plastic" doesn't make sense to me. In materials science, "plastic" changes mean that the change is permanent. "Elastic" means that the change is temporary. Describing the brain as "plastic" implies that changes will damage it, not that it is pliable and that new behaviours can be developed.

[jhNY]

In answer to the question posed in the headline, I'll hazard a geuss: Greed, lots of greed, and the vitality and contributions of their underpaid workers.

[ibsteve2u]

Not to mention an ability to see morality, ethics, patriotism, and even religion - when publicly practiced - as secondary to self-enrichment.

[FoonTheElder]

The requirements are pure sociopathic behavior and the willingness to sc*ew over everyone else for your benefit.

Like selling out your business to someone who is going to layoff most of the employees who were responsible for the success of your business.

One of my favorites is from Marc Leder of Sun Capital worth about $400 million:
"(They) have skimped on salaries. In a move that rankled associates, Leder sent a note to all employees earlier this year after taking a ski vacation on the company jet, according to a Sun investor. "

"Leder bragged in the note that he was able to keep up with his private ski instructor. The note arrived just after the two announced that expected bonuses would not be paid."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262009/business/sun_capital_eclipsed_181445.htm