Why is it an impression that the bosses are the bad”?

Should leaders have bad character? Many successful leaders cannot be taken as examples of sensitive leaders and are far from leadership models described in management books.

Is it possible that anything that is read about Leadeshire is a good rhetoric compared to a real world where the leader is authoritarian, despotic, well - oriented and not sensitive?

It would be wrong to think that theories about leadership are invalid and out of the question. The reason for this distance, between the <x0-teoric characteristics” of the ladezerip and the true characteristics, lies largely in the mechanisms of selecting supposed leaders or leaders. The skills and attitudes needed to make a career - to gain senior leadership positions - differ greatly from those needed to lead a team or company.

Strong personal ambition, orientation to purpose (against everything and everyone), obsession with control combined with a dose of narcissism, and the pleasure of making decisions and influencing others are all characteristics of senior directors in the company. These qualities are very much needed to achieve high management positions in the company.

Within one company, in fact, people who spend a lot of time on work are rewarded, who do not give up in the face of difficulties, and who are constantly producing results without harm and ʹpore. Let's take an example, who becomes the director of sales at a company? One who in time had a good performance in sales, and certainly not one who was most cautious in creating a team and creating a goal in the community.

These features are not always the most necessary to run a company after you have achieved a senior leading position. When the game is personal, or when reaching the target set is functional to career, it only matters “what” ( reach or not). If you've reached the top of the pyramid, the game should stop (or stop) being personal and it's about the whole company. In this case, except for “what” ( reach) plays an important role even “si” has been achieved. The way the results are achieved in the company are more important than before, since in the quality of a CEO so, representative of shareholders, you should be more interested in medium-term logic, and, above all, that the company's performance is stable.

This brings many complications to strategic elections in investment, but also to the company's culture. Determination is an addiction and a sloth for someone and apathy and deactivation among others. Lack of interest in relevant aspects compared to the topic of objectives can create a highly competitive and stressful environment and can bring negative consequences to domestic communication, company synergies and innovation processes.

A second important difference is Leaderrip tout cort. Are we sure CEOs are leaders? No doubt they play a leading role in the company, but would their team be pursued if they did not have power in the company hierarchy? So the question is, do they have the role of a senior manager because they are leaders, or are they so-called leaders after holding the CEO's position? The answer clearly cannot be generalized, but my impression is that some senior leaders, if they were to lose power, would soon find themselves in a corner, resulting in unable to even include their own family and friends, not their fellow workers.

At the same time, there are many people in a company who, while not in high level hierarchic roles, are known as reference points and are considered leaders by colleagues. If we were to analyze the characteristics and, above all, behaviors of such ones, they would be seen very different aspects of those described above as those described above.

At this point, we need to ask why such people should take the lead in a company? The issue is complex and very current. This may help us to understand the situation. In 1995 a CEO stood at the helm of an average company for 10 years. Today, CEOs average every 6 years. In the '70s, holding titles in the company lasted an average of 7 years, today is about 7 months. Strong international competition has created a habitat in companies oriented towards results in the short term at all costs.

These reflections are related not only to company executives but also to political leaders.