Business Chemistry in the C-suite 04-08

Do C-suite executives work differently than many of us?

Business Chemistry explores C-suite working preferences

C-suite executives are more likely than the general business population to think about the big picture, embrace the competitive spirit, and make quick decisions. That’s the finding of a new study of 661 C-suite executives by the Deloitte Greenhouse Experience team. Business Chemistry’s researchers provide tips for all four types whether they are current leaders, aspiring leaders, or those who work with a CxO.

Executive Summary

In a new report titled, “Business Chemistry in the C-suite,” researchers from the Deloitte Greenhouse Experience team surveyed 661 C-suite executives and found that two of the four primary Business Chemistry types account for nearly two-thirds of the sample.

• 36 percent: Pioneers, who value possibilities and spark creativity
• 29 percent: Drivers, who value challenge and generate momentum
• 18 percent: Guardians, who value stability and bring order
• 17 percent: Integrators, who value connection and draw teams together

65 percent of CxOs are characterized by two Business Chemistry types.

These executives are more likely to be energetic, big picture thinkers who are comfortable with ambiguity, and at the same time, tend to take more quantitative approaches¹. They’re more competitive and willing to address conflict. And, they tend to make decisions more quickly, without worrying about the popularity of those decisions. There seems to be a sort of toughness about these CxOs and a tendency to not sweat the small stuff. Check out the CxO Difference infographic to learn more.

However, there are also many ways in which CxOs are similar to those in the general business population. The research suggests that compared to the typical professional, those in C-suite roles are not more (or less) disciplined, punctual, or practical. They don’t place a different level of priority on relationships or building a network, or feel a different level of duty to society. They’re neither more nor less imaginative, interested in exploring new things, or fond of experimenting with novel ideas. And they don’t have differing comfort levels with expressiveness, nor do they place different levels of value on composure.

¹ Analyses of these traits and others in this section are based on the 68 items of the Business Chemistry Assessment. Respondents use sliders to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as “Other people would say that I am a very disciplined person.”

                      

Factors influencing CxO’s working preferences

The study also reveals differences in the proportion of Business Chemistry types in the C-suite related to function, organization size, industry and gender.

For example, while Pioneers were more prevalent in the C-suite overall in our study, Drivers (37 percent) and Guardians (26 percent) were the two top CFO types represented, while the CIO role contained relatively similar proportions of Drivers (37 percent) and Pioneers (36 percent). Similarly, in the largest organizations in our sample, those with more than 100,000 employees, the proportion of C-suite executives who were Drivers (38 percent) outpaced the proportion of Pioneers (29 percent); and in organizations with more than $10 billion in revenue, Drivers and Pioneers each represented 34 percent of the C-suite.

In organizations with more than 100,000 employees the proportion of Driver CxOs (38 percent) is greater than that of Pioneers (29 percent).

The study suggests that in several industries Pioneers are the most common Business Chemistry type in the C-suite, but in certain other industries we see concentrations of Drivers, Guardians, and Integrators in CxO roles. The CxO Industries infographic offers an in depth look.

Our research shows gender differences between Business Chemistry types, both within the C-suite and the general business population. This study found both women and men in the C-suite were most likely to be Pioneers, but a higher proportion of female executives were Integrators (27 percent) than Drivers (22 percent). By contrast, a higher proportion of male executives were Drivers (33 percent) than Integrators (12 percent).

Why are we seeing these patterns and what are the implications?

We propose there are a number of external selection factors that may lead to Drivers, and even more so Guardians and Integrators, being less common in the C-suite. These include various elements of today’s business environment, the rise of the “extrovert ideal,” the tendency for like types to attract, and some particular reasons that the value of Guardians and Integrators sometimes goes unrecognized. Learn more from the CxO Behind the Scenes infographic.

Additionally, we suggest there are self-section factors at play from how a type responds to stress to their desired career aspirations. When 13,885 professionals in a separate study were asked what they most aspire to when it comes to their careers, the overwhelming majority of Drivers (68 percent) and Pioneers (67 percent) chose “Leader.” The top three choices for each type were:

• Drivers: “Leader” (68 percent), “Top performer” (52 percent), “Innovator” (36 percent)
• Pioneers: “Leader” (67 percent), “Innovator” (44 percent), “Top performer” (33 percent)
• Integrators: “Leader” (51 percent), “Team player” (48 percent), “Mentor” (40 percent)
• Guardians: “Leader” and “Top performer” (tied at 50 percent), “Team player” (46 percent)

A C-suite dominated by a particular type may have positive implications. For example, as leaders Pioneers can inspire creativity in others. But there may be negative implications as well, which may differ depending on whether leaders are working with those who share their type or don’t.

Recommendations for leaders and those who work with them

A primary tenet of Business Chemistry is that varying approaches will work to bring out the best in the different Business Chemistry types. Download the full report to learn more about recommendations based on the findings in this study for current leaders, aspirational leaders, and for those who work with CxOs, including the following segments:

• For current leaders, learn more about identifying disparate work styles on your teams and actively managing differences to benefit the organization. Explore insights on the role of opposites, why it’s important to elevate minority team perspectives, and take note of more introverted and sensitive team members. Read more in the recent Harvard Business Review article “The new science of team chemistry.”

• For those who are not currently leading, regardless of whether you aspire to the C-suite or have other aspirations, find out how you might flex your style to help achieve your objectives with those who have different working styles.

We’re not all the same. Of course that’s the point of Business Chemistry and the beauty of working with diverse teams. With a little extra effort, you can bring together people with diverse perspectives and do more together than you might by sticking with those of your own type. As Einstein once said: “When we all think alike, no one thinks very much.


View at the original source

CEO'S THAT SUCCESSFULLY FAIL ! ! ! !

CEO'S THAT SUCCESSFULLY FAIL ! ! ! !

The myth that surrounds the persona of a CEO as a person who never fails has been blown away by the adversities that continuously affected the industry during the past couple of years. The supposedly best have bitten the dust, while some so called non entities have not only proven equal to the task but they have also successfully steered their organization out of the turmoil and put it back on the growth track.

What is the factor that separates the successful CEO from the ones that fail????

It's rarely for lack of smarts or vision. Most unsuccessful CEOs stumble because of one simple, fatal shortcoming. Here's what we aren't saying: That failed CEOs are dumb or evil. In fact they tend to be highly intelligent, articulate, dedicated, and accomplished. They worked hard, made sacrifices, and may have performed well terrifically for years.

Nor are we saying execution is the only reason CEOs falter. Sometimes they adopt a strategy so flawed that it's doomed, or they refuse to confront reality in their markets, or they antagonize their board. And when a CEO really goes down in flames, there's almost always more than one reason.

It's clear, as well, that getting execution right will only become more crucial. The worldwide revolution of free markets, open economies, and lowered trade barriers and the advent of e-commerce have made virtually every business far more brutally competitive. The frantic spread of information through technology is making customers everywhere more powerful and pushing toward the commoditization of everything. Institutional investors who now own a substantial portion of equities relentlessly demand results.

One important area of failure for the CEO’s is the failure to put, the right people in the right job, and of course the relative failure to fix problems in time..

Selection &; Retention factor.

Sometimes strange anomalies not strictly related to merit become the criteria for selection and retention of an employee. A relatively less confident CEO would avoid recruiting a highly accomplished deputy for the fear that the latter would attract the attention of the governing board and present a viable alternative to the incumbent CEO. A sense of insecurity within often dictates such decisions.

On the other extreme is the highly overconfident CEO, who thinks that he can mentor and coach anyone to exacting delivery levels. My man theory comes in to effect here. Here he selects a person who he thinks will remain loyal to him in adversities and not turn tables on him. The philosophy of “I would rather take the devil I know, rather than the one I don’t.

Other less important but influencing factor for selecting a person could be, the person creates a positive vibe in the social media, hence a good individual to be around. The person may be more acceptable to the majority of the members of the governing board. He has successes in a different field, and hence would succeed here also. Sometimes these people are selected in preference, to the home bred executives who have contributed positively to the organization. Sacking important executives may or may not impact the organization negatively, but retaining non performing ones would definitely, waiting indefinitely in the hope performance will definitely impact the organization negatively.

More often than not these deemed success turnout to be reasons for doomed bottom lines & careers.

The CEO’s role extends beyond the bottomlines. It pays to treat employees as stake holders.

Making the bottom line your top priority may not be the best way to improve profitability. Recent research shows that CEOs who put stakeholders’ interests ahead of profits generate greater workforce engagement—and thus deliver the superior financial resultsthan  that they have made a secondary goal.

This finding is based on survey data gathered from 520 business organizations in 17 countries, many of them emerging markets. If a CEO’s primary focus is on profit maximization, employees develop negative feelings toward the organization. They tend to perceive the CEO as autocratic and focused on the short term, and they report being somewhat less willing to sacrifice for the company. Corporate performance is poorer as a result.

But when the CEO makes it a priority to balance the concerns of customers, employees, and the community while also taking environmental impact into account, employees perceive him or her as visionary and participatory. They report being more willing to exert extra effort, and corporate results improve.

Inspiring Vision

Jack Welch, the legendary former CEO of GE was well known for cultivating a breed of successful CEO’s from within, who were not only great success but also contributed to GE for more than a decade as CEO’s. The continuity factor at the top often creates the comfort , and puts them ahead of organizations that don’t have this factor.

It is important to create a vision that inspires and directs the organization. And ensure that, it is broad enough to allow great flexibility. Communicate your vision to everyone in your organization and create an innovation-adept culture environment that encourages entrepreneurial creativity to make the vision a reality.


"Leaders inspire people with clear visions of how things can be done better,“ writes Jack Welch “The best leaders do not provide a step-by-step instruction manual for workers. The best leaders are those who come up with new idea, and articulate a vision that inspires others to act.”

All said and done, it is still not possible to lay down the formula for the success or the reasons for the failure of the CEO’s. People with early setbacks in life like Steve Jobs have turned out to be great success in later part of their lives & career. "Lee" Iacocca's  story of the turnaround in Chrysler Corporation is a folklore people never tire of singing. Adversities sometimes throw up leaders that normal circumstances may not.

Hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Please come out with your valuable views.

Best wishes,

Shyam