Have we learned charisma does not equal good manager?

Conrad

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry I disagree you average financial boff is not exactly charismatic.
Power and sucess went to their heads and they took more and more risks because they felt invinsable and that it would never end.

Put most people in the same possision for the same time and I bet it still would of happend.

Greed and power and risk caused it not charisma.

I think youre wrong:o

These charismatic arrogant 'leaders' create an atmosphere in which feedback from below is stiffled, afterall doesn't the leader have ALL the answers?

These individuals can walk on water - and woe betied any dischordant voice at the boardroom table.

Appointing this particual type of leader IS THE ENTIRE REASON WE HAVE THIS MESS

Lehmans CE was warned yet brushed asside the 'doom mongering.
The HBOS risk manager was dismissed.

No one dared challenge these meglamaniacs.

A book in 2006 was released that predicted all this and put it down to the wrong types of business leaders, where charisma and thas ability to network became the key qualities sought, when in fact technical knowledge and the ability to truly listen were what was needed.

Conrad

JoeyG wrote: »

How do the Germans and Japanese go about appointing leaders?

The emphasis is on technical knowhow and domaine knowledge, which is why youre more likely to find an engineer at the help as opposed to a Sir Christopher Bland type - great at parties, borish, loud, arrogant, and wholly out of touch.
He ran BT, and I along with most business customers have found the service to be horrendus, disjointed, confusing and troublesome.
Because he was not in touch with the ground floor he wont have known this. He's far to busy being charismatic to trly understand every part of his business and what it feels like to be an end user (he'd rely on dubm surveys for customer satisfaction rather than getting down into the trenches - just as the RBS Chairman was far too distant from his American, hmm, investments)

Really2

Conrad wrote: »

I think youre wrong:o

These charismatic arrogant 'leaders' create an atmosphere in which feedback from below is stiffled, afterall doesn't the leader have ALL the answers?

These individuals can walk on water - and woe betied any dischordant voice at the boardroom table.

Appointing this particual type of leader IS THE ENTIRE REASON WE HAVE THIS MESS

Lehmans CE was warned yet brushed asside the 'doom mongering.
The HBOS risk manager was dismissed.

No one dared challenge these meglamaniacs.

A book in 2006 was released that predicted all this and put it down to the wrong types of business leaders, where charisma and thas ability to network became the key qualities sought, when in fact technical knowledge and the ability to truly listen were what was needed.

#

It is a needed leadership quality like it or not.

The people who run the banks etc do not strike me as perticuarly charismatic.

But any leader must have charisma as it is a quality leaders need.

What is the point of having a leader who is great in his field but everyone hates him and no one trusts him or supports him (Oh a Dictator)

You are barking up the wrong tree just because leaders have charisma does not make charisma the problem.

You could blame any leadership quality as all the people to blame would also have them.;)

Best example Bill Gates not exactly charismatic but the most charismatic person with his skill set in his field.
That was the difference from him being a back room programer to a leader of one of the most powerfull companies on earth.

bigheadxx

Incompetent and ineffective management is ingrained into the way the UK does things. The biggest problem is that people see their own traits as desireable which means that people in a position of power will appoint others with the same traits as they really do believe that they are the best person for the job. A lot of managers are also fearful of appointing others who are better qualified than themselves and therefore choose to appoint a person that is the least threat to them.

For this reason I think it is laughable that the government justifies continuing to pay these huge bonuses to some of the most incompetent people on earth to prevent us "losing the skills". These skills have destroyed more than just our economy so I think a complete change in the way UK Plc does business and makes senior appointments is necessary to engender a long term perspective from top to bottom.

rl290

One reason, among many, for general bad management must come from our education system. In the UK, most people who become managers do their A levels, rush through three years of university (often it has little to do with their career), and then never go back to education...

In America, most managerial roles in corporations require MBAs. If you ever look at German companies' accounts you'll notice that many Board members are PhDs (though the Doctrine system over there is slightly different).

When I graduated, I went to work in the city with only a bachelors degree in economics (which had covered little about what my job would entail). My European counterparts were all several years older as they HAD to do a masters degree in a relevant subject (such as corporate finance) before entering the company at the same level. The American graduates had done more relevant undergraduate degrees, and were all expected to leave after 2 years to do MBAs in order to be able to go into an "associate" position. In Europe we all became associates automatically after 3 years...

So, after 3 years we had Americas with MBAs (very relevant to business), Europeans with masters degrees in subjects related to their jobs (very relevant to business) and UK people who had degrees in everything from languages to sciences...

R

matthewcb

rl290 wrote: »

So, after 3 years we had Americas with MBAs (very relevant to business), Europeans with masters degrees in subjects related to their jobs (very relevant to business) and UK people who had degrees in everything from languages to sciences...

R

A good theory, except of course America is just as guilty as the UK when it comes to bad management.

In fact, I've heard suggestions that the problem with many American businesses was that these guys think having an MBA means they can run *any* business without practical experience. What was needed was the type of CEO who had worked his way up within the business, not just been positioned near the top from the start.

StevieJ

What was that word for people with a different view, ahh I remember BLOCKERS

Dylanwing

The theory that you only need to know how to manage, not what you are managing is also to blame. It can work, but only if the people at the top will listen to the experts, but sadly their egos rarely allow any listening.

Conrad

Perhaps charisma is not the villain here, but certainly we've been appointing bloated egos such as Fred the Shred and Peter (Pru) Davis that have not got a clue, but dont know it. They were appointed on the back of having a cocktail of personailty traits that one might collectively term charisma.
These traites are those fo the loud, the boorish, the bullish and the arrogant.

You night say they are the type all eyes are drawn to in a room.

It is for this vague notion of leadership that such people are seen in Anglo Saxon culture as natural leaders, but this is all wrong, thats my point.

We should have been appointing people born and bread into one Bank that knew every nook and cranny. Such a safe pair of hands might not be the best talker at the cocktail party, but they sure as heck wouldnt a got into US sub prime CDO's.

Fred the shred and crew couldnt see what needed to be done because all thier lives theyve been told they could do no wrong - they could simply and magically manage anything.

JP45

Conrad wrote: »

Perhaps charisma is not the villain here, but certainly we've been appointing bloated egos such as Fred the Shred and Peter (Pru) Davis that have not got a clue, but dont know it. They were appointed on the back of having a cocktail of personailty traits that one might collectively term charisma.
These traites are those fo the loud, the boorish, the bullish and the arrogant.

You night say they are the type all eyes are drawn to in a room.

It is for this vague notion of leadership that such people are seen in Anglo Saxon culture as natural leaders, but this is all wrong, thats my point.

We should have been appointing people born and bread into one Bank that knew every nook and cranny. Such a safe pair of hands might not be the best talker at the cocktail party, but they sure as heck wouldnt a got into US sub prime CDO's.

Fred the shred and crew couldnt see what needed to be done because all thier lives theyve been told they could do no wrong - they could simply and magically manage anything.

I agree that charisma is perhaps not quite the right word. But I do agree with your overall view that many of the current problems with the banks, and indeed in society at large, are down to the types of people you describe.

You only have to read the accounts in the Press of the likes of Adam Applegarth, !!!!!! Fuld and Sir Fred Goodwin, to realise that they are all of a similar type - fiercly competitive, narcissistic, arrogant and bullying. And that's before they gain power. Once they gain power they're unstoppable.

What's needed is either to prevent them from gaining such power in the first place or, failing that, to have someone of sufficient strength as Board Chairman to curb their wilder excesses.