The Monopoly test seems to cover the causation question pretty well. Select one player at random and give them extra money or property at the start of the game, with all players being aware. The advantaged players become more anti-social in their play, and after the game will self-rate their “skill” level much higher than the disadvantaged players, downplaying the impact of their advantage.
Like, even for that small period of time? Thinking you have skill when you don’t makes you a piece of shit? Makes you greedy? Makes you take shit from children?
The Monopoly test is interesting and all, but I question its scientific validity. Is it transferable to all CEOs, and even a very wealthy CEO. Is the behavior even translatable to the behaviors we are attributing CEOs here? I don’t even know.
I think we all hate giga-CEOs (yes me too) and can get blinded by that hate a little bit.
“piece of shit” is your term, not mine or the study’s. If you want to know more, it’s on the Interwebs. What I will say is that feeling like they have earned what they have because they are inherently better than others is pretty core to the CEO pathology.
What I will say is that feeling like they have earned what they have because they are inherently better than others is pretty core to the CEO pathology.
I just don’t feel like we can say it’s “CEO” pathology. You have to have a company large enough, I think. Then it might start to get a grasp over you as a CEO. But I doubt small businesses have CEOs in the “vast majority” that think this way. I just cannot believe that. Despite that cute Monopoly spectacle. It just doesn’t feel scientific.
Did I really need to specify “not all CEOs”? It’s entirely possible that there are some CEOs that don’t suck. There are probably CEOs that do suck, but for an entirely different reason. However, I think the vast majority of CEOs do fall under this umbrella, which is the best you are going to get with broad generalizations. I do have some experience with small business CEOs, and they certainly fit this pattern, but that’s just my personal experience.
How do you think someone gets to be the CEO of a decently sized corporation? Hard work? Lots of people work hard, many a lot harder than CEOs. Supernormal Intelligence? CEOs are certainly more intelligent than everage, but they aren’t rocket scientists, no matter what Elon wants us to think.
What makes them CEO material is a laser focus on the bottom line, and the willingness to absolutely anything to make that line go up faster. Being ethically compromised as human beings is part of the job description. Mentally healthy people are not qualified to be CEOs. That’s the way our system is designed to function.
The Monopoly test seems to cover the causation question pretty well. Select one player at random and give them extra money or property at the start of the game, with all players being aware. The advantaged players become more anti-social in their play, and after the game will self-rate their “skill” level much higher than the disadvantaged players, downplaying the impact of their advantage.
Does that make them a piece of shit though?
I guess that depends on how permanent the effect is. It certainly makes them shittier for a time.
Like, even for that small period of time? Thinking you have skill when you don’t makes you a piece of shit? Makes you greedy? Makes you take shit from children?
The Monopoly test is interesting and all, but I question its scientific validity. Is it transferable to all CEOs, and even a very wealthy CEO. Is the behavior even translatable to the behaviors we are attributing CEOs here? I don’t even know.
I think we all hate giga-CEOs (yes me too) and can get blinded by that hate a little bit.
“piece of shit” is your term, not mine or the study’s. If you want to know more, it’s on the Interwebs. What I will say is that feeling like they have earned what they have because they are inherently better than others is pretty core to the CEO pathology.
I just don’t feel like we can say it’s “CEO” pathology. You have to have a company large enough, I think. Then it might start to get a grasp over you as a CEO. But I doubt small businesses have CEOs in the “vast majority” that think this way. I just cannot believe that. Despite that cute Monopoly spectacle. It just doesn’t feel scientific.
Did I really need to specify “not all CEOs”? It’s entirely possible that there are some CEOs that don’t suck. There are probably CEOs that do suck, but for an entirely different reason. However, I think the vast majority of CEOs do fall under this umbrella, which is the best you are going to get with broad generalizations. I do have some experience with small business CEOs, and they certainly fit this pattern, but that’s just my personal experience.
No because that’s not what I’m disputing. I just cannot believe, for lack of evidence, that the “vast majority” of CEOs are like this. I just can’t.
And one person’s experience is indeed a small sample size, yes.
How do you think someone gets to be the CEO of a decently sized corporation? Hard work? Lots of people work hard, many a lot harder than CEOs. Supernormal Intelligence? CEOs are certainly more intelligent than everage, but they aren’t rocket scientists, no matter what Elon wants us to think.
What makes them CEO material is a laser focus on the bottom line, and the willingness to absolutely anything to make that line go up faster. Being ethically compromised as human beings is part of the job description. Mentally healthy people are not qualified to be CEOs. That’s the way our system is designed to function.
yes
yes