T The latest themes relating to the study of the mind, such as the psychology of disgust, greed and grit, plus gamification, neurodiversity, machine learning and micro-aggressions might not all be of equal stature. Some are, by nature, ‘bigger’ than others, but while a few might turn out to be temporary fads, others – perhaps cyber-psychology, for example – may endure. However, the question is whether any of these topics should appear in business school curricula. Over the years, different groups have lobbied for the introduction of new subjects and disciplines, putting great strain on the timetable. Consider the following fictitious course examples: Mindful leadership in the digital era ; Leading in digitised workplaces ; Green growth as competitive advantage ; Executive power and sensemaking ; Digitisation, innovation and business models ; and Persuasion and power from a leadership perspective . I am half-tempted to derive a course from the brilliant and frank Rules for Life often attributed to Bill Gates. My personal favourites among the 11 tenets are: “Life is not fair – get used to it”; “The world won’t care about your self-esteem”; “If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss”; “If you mess up, it’s not your parents’ fault, so don’t whine about your mistakes, learn from them”: “Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life has not”; and “Be nice to nerds, chances are you’ll end up working for one.” The psychology of leadership derailment In reality, what I would teach would not be a course that covers one or two of the subjects and ideas mentioned above, but
instead one that takes up a theme I have developed over many years: leadership derailment. Estimates vary, but failure rates for business executives run as high as 65 per cent. There are two big reasons for falling short. It can happen when strengths are overused, such as when confidence turns into narcissism, and it can happen when managers become greedy, even though there are many who still believe that “greed is good”. Let’s start with the evidence for business failure. A 20-year review of the highest-paid CEOs in the US from the Institute for Policy Studies showed that 38 per cent of the country’s top leaders failed between 1993 and 2012. These CEOs either wound up getting fired, had to pay massive settlements or fines related to fraud charges, or led firms that crashed or were bailed out during the 2008 financial crisis. More recently, Heidrick & Struggles conducted a study of 20,000 senior executive placements and found that 40 per cent failed within 18 months. Here, a failure meant the executive either left, was asked to leave, or was performing significantly below expectations. Its review noted that “the Corporate Leadership Council puts the failure rate at nearly 50 per cent. The Harvard Business Review gave a range of failures on new management hires of between 40 and 60 per cent. Finally, the Centre for Creative Leadership estimates a failure rate of 40 per cent for new CEOs”.
20 Business Impact • ISSUE 4 • 2024
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online