So, probably a good thing that the WaPo does:
The researchers behind the study, called the CEO Genome Project, used a database of assessments…What they found surprised them. A little more than half of the CEOs who did better than expected in the minds of investors and directors were actually introverts, not the usual gregarious CEO known for glad-handing customers.
“The biggest aha, overall, is that some of the things that make CEOs attractive to the board have no bearing on their performance,” said Elena Lytkina Botelho, a partner at ghSmart and a co-founder of the project. “Like most human beings, they get seduced by charismatic, polished presenters. They simply do better in interviews.”
Also interesting to me (particularly because I am very vocal about the over-reliance upon ivy league degrees and credentials that often promotes polish over true capabilities) was this bit:
Meanwhile, only 7 percent of the best-performing CEOs — who ran companies from Fortune 10 behemoths to those with just $10 million in annual sales — had an Ivy League degree, despite the conventional wisdom that pedigree matters. “There was zero correlation between pedigree and ultimate performance,” she said, acknowledging that number could be higher if they were just looking at large Fortune 500 firms.
Read the whole thing. Very interesting to realize what ends up being valuable. It seems someone being willing to make a timely decision, even if it’s not always the right one, is seen as a leader. Introverts, by their natures, tend to do this; they quickly size up situations (or people), trust their instincts and make a call, for better or worse.