3 ms·

Kahneman thinks otherwise. Perceived CEO performance and company performance have low correlation -- as low as 0.3. I could give references, but the book (Thin

Kahneman thinks otherwise. Perceived CEO performance and company performance have low correlation -- as low as 0.3. I could give references, but the book (Thinking, Fast and Slow) is not in public domain yet, so just some 3rd party links: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/634181be-4769-11e1-b847-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/634181be-4769-11e1-b847-00144feabd... http://www.delanceyplace.com/view_archives.php?2084#.UyL_vIUhK1k http://www.delanceyplace.com/view_archives.php?2084#.UyL_vIU...

girvo 13y ago
CEO, vs Manager? I dunno, I know they're one and the same in a start-up, but I took this article to be talking about larger companies, with teams that all have managers. In my experience, the article is pretty bang-on, too.
btilly 13y ago
This does not disagree with the point. I've encountered some of the research that they are referring to in http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/0684852861 http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/0.... What Gallup has done is developed their own methodology to identify who will be effective managers, and their claim is that the managers that they identify as effective have a huge impact on performance. But their identification has a fairly low correlation with what most in the organization perceive as who is effective. If you re-read the blog keeping what I just said in mind, you will see that it fits. And you will further see that your point is in complete agreement - the people who are perceived as having good management potential have a low correlation with actual performance. The blog points out that this happens at the bottom level because people who are good at non-management tasks get promoted to management and may or may not be a fit. But as you go up the latter you find that a lot of what tends to get rewarded is visible success. Which gives an unfair edge to self-promoting narcissists who manage to make their occasional successes more visible than they should be. The result being that perception and reality tend to diverge.

girvo 13y ago

CEO, vs Manager? I dunno, I know they're one and the same in a start-up, but I took this article to be talking about larger companies, with teams that all have managers. In my experience, the article is pretty bang-on, too.

btilly 13y ago

This does not disagree with the point. I've encountered some of the research that they are referring to in http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/0684852861 http://www.amazon.com/First-Break-All-Rules-Differently/dp/0.... What Gallup has done is developed their own methodology to identify who will be effective managers, and their claim is that the managers that they identify as effective have a huge impact on performance. But their identification has a fairly low correlation with what most in the organization perceive as who is effective. If you re-read the blog keeping what I just said in mind, you will see that it fits. And you will further see that your point is in complete agreement - the people who are perceived as having good management potential have a low correlation with actual performance. The blog points out that this happens at the bottom level because people who are good at non-management tasks get promoted to management and may or may not be a fit. But as you go up the latter you find that a lot of what tends to get rewarded is visible success. Which gives an unfair edge to self-promoting narcissists who manage to make their occasional successes more visible than they should be. The result being that perception and reality tend to diverge.