Chief executives are weirder than ever

Celebrities bosses  used to have nicknames that made a virtue of short fuses and brutality. “Chainsaw Al” and “Neutron Jack” sounded more like wrestlers than men in suits. That kind of moniker would jar today. Inclusivity and empathy are what matter: think “Listening Tim” and “Simpatico Satya”. But just because chief executives seem more normal does not mean that they actually are. The demands of the job require an ever-stranger set of characteristics.

In some ways the path to the top of the corporate pyramid is unchanged. It requires people to compete with each other over an extended period. It demands evidence of financial and operational success. It uses the prospect of money—lots of it—as a lever to incentivise ambitious people. And it selects for familiar traits: hard work, impatience, self-confidence and extroversion. If you would rather stay in and watch “The Great British Bake Off” than wine and dine clients, the role is not for you.

A recent study by Steve Kaplan of the University of Chicago and Morten Sorensen of the Tuck School of Business looks at assessments conducted by ghsmart, a consulting firm, of more than 2,600 candidates for different leadership positions. Candidates for ceo jobs emerge as a recognisable type. Across a range of characteristics they have more extreme ratings on average: they shine in what the academics term “general ability”.

They also differ from other executives in the particulars. Where aspiring chief financial officers are more analytical and focus on the detail, would-be ceos score higher on charisma, on getting things done and on strategic thinking. These traits also seem to be predictive. By tracking the subsequent careers of candidates, the academics find that people who were applying for a different position but had “ceo-like” characteristics were more likely eventually to wind up in the top job.