Michael,

Yes, I agree with what is being said here. However, I take issue with the use of the word flawed. I think many of these symptoms point to a CEO who does not have cognitive capacity at the level required of his role. This will make him unsuccessful, but he is not inherently flawed, just mismatched to a role.

What is required for one to be viewed as a leader is for the leader to have higher cognitive capacity than the "follower". A person with higher cognitive capacity will add value to my thinking. If you do not add value to my thinking, I will not see you as my leader. (This does not mean you cannot be someone else's leader.)

I took the list of symptoms and added the likely cause of the symptom in brackets.

 A proclivity for developing grandiose strategies with little thought toward their implementation. [His current cognitive capacity does not allow for him to deal with the complexity necessary to lead the implementation.]
 A fondness for rules and numbers that overshadows or ignores a broader vision. [His cognitive capability does not allow for him to see the broader vision.]
 An impulsive, flippant decision-making style. [Cognitive capacity is directly tied to the amount and complexity of information one takes into account when making a decision. Lower capacity = less taken into account. Those with higher capacity may view decisions of those with less capacity as “not thought through”. When the reality is they can’t think it through to the same level as one with higher capacity.]
 A love of monologues coupled with poor listening skills. [My thinking cannot add value to this thinking so I will ignore it.]
 A tendency to display contempt for the ideas of others. [My ideas cannot add value to these ideas so I will disparage them.]
 A history of emphasizing activity, like hours worked or meetings attended, over accomplishment. [This stems from a mistaken belief that if one works more hours, he will be able to deliver work that requires higher level cognitive capacity.]
 A career marked by numerous misunderstandings. There are two sides to every story, but frequent interpersonal problems shouldn't be overlooked. [Whenever a leader does not have higher capacity than those he is leading, there will be “interpersonal conflicts” with direct reports.]

I'm OK. You're OK. Let's fix the system.

Regards,

Michelle

Interestingly enough, the list of warning signs leads me to think of Hillary Clinton!!

Michelle:

I believe that given these issues, they all point to a flaw in character that would not work well in any leadership role. I believe it can be addressed and worked on, but regardless of my cognitive ability, if I don’t have my ego in check—my view of me in relation to other people—I will not be effective in any leadership situation. It may work for a time but eventually it will lead to my downfall.

I agree that a leader must be seen as competent, but if their ego gets in the way of their decision making and people skills, they will ultimately fail. Thanks for the comment.

Michael

When you speak of a "higher cognitive capacity" Michelle, aren't you simply saying he's limited intellectually? Or just "not as smart as?" Wouldn't that mean that he or she could be trained and taught to operate differently? I believe there is more involved here than a limited capacity. I think this is a character issue. Character issues - largely cast in stone after reaching adulthood - eventually result in considerable damage. Damage to the organization, to those they lead, and at the end of the day, to themselves.
Sadly - and most frustrating about this list- is that it's almost impossible to spot these things about a manager or CEO before you go to work for him.

Michael,

Yes, if ego gets in the way of a leader's decision making, it will be an issue regardless of cognitive capabiilty.

Lori,

I'm not talking about intelligence as it's commonly defined as the common definition is ambiguous. I'm taking about cognitive capacity to deal with, organize, and extrapolate information in order to solve problems. This problem solving capability can be categorized into levels. Problem solving capability varies from person to person (as most would agree that intelligence varies from person to person). Cognitive capacity does mature over time but cannot be trained.

And, although character flaws aren't always seen before hiring, cognitive capacity can be observed to ensure it matches the level of complexity of the role.

I am not saying that CEO's cannot have character issues, I'm saying that I like to look for other causes of dysfuntional behavior before I play the "character flaw" card. Mismatched cognitive capacity to role (with any employee, not just a CEO) can cause variety of issues that masquerade as personality and character issues.

My mantra is: I'm OK. You're OK. Let's fix the system. (And then, yes, we might need to work on individuals too.)

Regards,

Michelle

I get the professor's observations, but I find it fascinating that boards still hire these guys/gals. Have we've lost our way so much that we won't take a stand and say enough with these types of leaders?

Corporate America has lost whatever soul it once might have had. Evaluating (really evaluating) character has become politically incorrect and not a priority.

Ironically, if we hired men and women of character we'd make more money, retain more talent and add value to society as a whole. Isn't that the desire?