Current Events > In general, how smart are most CEOs, executives, or any high level employee?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't know I'm in the corporate world for the past few years and I drive level C employees in my 2nd job on weekends and.... I'm not really impressed

Majority of them seem average and I'm convinced anyone with ok enough intelligence can do their job if they were connected to the right people

Why do people suck up to these guys and admire them? I don't think a lot of these guys in finance, tech, or energy didn't even get to where they are through hard work. It's all about who they're connected to

What's so impressive about what they do?

There are different kinds of intelligence. The way you climb in any social structure is usually by stepping on the people you pass. So typically you get to the top by being manipulative and deceptive, those are a type of emotional intelligence but wouldn't necessarily represent itself as "academic knowledge" that would make a person seem "smart".

Depends on what you mean by "smart", but overall I'd say it varies to the point that there isn't really a "in general".

generally they are smart. Obviously theres exceptions but in general to succeed in those types of roles they need to demonstrate success on an organisation scale which requires knowledge of many facets of the business and foresight. If they make X decision how do they know it will make money. What decision do they make to stop losing money over here? Its something most people cant do

Rika_Furude posted...

generally they are smart. Obviously theres exceptions but in general to succeed in those types of roles they need to demonstrate success on an organisation scale which requires knowledge of many facets of the business and foresight. If they make X decision how do they know it will make money. What decision do they make to stop losing money over here? Its something most people cant do

This is in part what I mean by "It depends." When people talk about intelligence, they often mean things like IQ. And like, I'm someone who would traditionally be considered smart by that metric, but I'm absolutely terrible at making decisions, which is the main thing you are talking about. The other thing being knowledge, but that's a bit different as well I have limited knowledge on the specifics of running a business that is something that I could change if I had reason to do so as I am good at acquiring knowledge that I am interested in.

What's hilarious is that some of these guys can't even follow basic directions despite being "smart"

I had the CEO of some huge company argue with me and call me a liar because she didn't believe me that Swiss Air was not in a domestic terminal and that it was in the international terminal instead

Like seriously? My 5 year old niece could have even figured this out

ScionTC_07 posted...

What's hilarious is that some of these guys can't even follow basic directions despite being "smart"

I had the CEO of some huge company argue with me and call me a liar because she didn't believe me that Swiss Air was not in a domestic terminal and that it was in the international terminal instead

Like seriously? My 5 year old niece could have even figured this out

But thats not a matter of being smart as much as it is them being uninformed.

Maybe Swiss Air was at a different terminal at a different airport, and they assumed that was the case in all airports. JFK isnt necessarily split into domestic and international terminals.

Bit to the original point, theres different levels to being smart. You can be extremely knowledgeable in the particular field you work in, but know nothing at all in another.

They aren't required to be super intelligent.

They tend to have good networking skills, know how to delegate, be ambitious, and are prepared to put their job first.

Depends.

Being a CEO doesn't even mean one is smart at all in the first place.

Some people are born into wealth andor positions of power. Some get get incredibly lucky. Some are actually smart.

It all just depends.

They may excel at their specific but not so much everything else probably. That on top of being very sociable and likable probably which is probably how they knew the right people and how to appease them to get to their position in the first place.

Prismsblade posted...

They may excel at their specific but not so much everything else probably. That on top of being very sociable and likable probably which is probably how they knew the right people and how to appease them to get to their position in the first place.

Tbh none of those skills are that impressive because a lot of their connections got formed by being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time . not to mention, their parents likely helped them a lot on the way there

Most of these things are almost impossible to access if you're born in a regular working family unless you get serious with a girl who is rich

I think they seem to be good at making decisions. Not necessarily the right decisions, but just making decisions, which is sometimes an underrated skill.

TC have you ever heard of the Peter Principle?

ScionTC_07 posted...

Tbh none of those skills are that impressive because a lot of their connections got formed by being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time . not to mention, their parents likely helped them a lot on the way there

Most of these things are almost impossible to access if you're born in a regular working family unless you get serious with a girl who is rich

I agree but even still an anti social introvert is probably not getting far in the businesses world more often then not even with high tier family ties or connections. Sort of their farther being the head CEO or something.

ScionTC_07 posted...

Tbh none of those skills are that impressive because a lot of their connections got formed by being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time . not to mention, their parents likely helped them a lot on the way there

Most of these things are almost impossible to access if you're born in a regular working family unless you get serious with a girl who is rich

So then why ask the question if you're not going to be satisfied with any answer other than the one that agrees with you?

For example. My boss is technically the CEO of the company, but it's a company that is in an extremely specific genre and employs only 22 people.

He is VERY well versed in the industry, and started the business making a $1000 investment importing some portable phone parts wholesale that he then resold to Mom and Pop electronic stores (back when they existed in the 90s and 2000s) that weren't willing to buy at the volumes he bought them at.

Is he "smart" in the way someone on Jeopary is "smart"? Probably (definitely) not. But is he "smart" in the sense that over the last 30 years he grew the business (between calculated risks of product expansion and the gift of gab) to more than just him and his brother selling these parts from their basement? Obviously. Company grosses about $10 million a year importing and reselling a myriad of electronics parts.

I think they're generally capable in their fields, but:

-It took them a lot of luck and chance to get to where they are (most of the smart ones admit this)
-Their jobs and roles are replaceable and there are tons of people on Earth who could do what they do
-Their capability in one field does not mean that they are capable in other fields
-A lot of them had even more luck and chance than others (i.e. someone like Trump who was born into a real estate holding family)

Theyre ok but their talent is replaceable. People from my native East Oakland can do what a lot of them can. Only difference is that people from my old hood dont have those connections or opportunities to even get their foot in the door yo show what they got.

Trump proves you don't need brains to be the CEO of anything.

They just have good connections. They're not better than a lot of other workers.

Prismsblade posted...

I agree but even still an anti social introvert is probably not getting far in the businesses world more often then not even with high tier family ties or connections. Sort of their farther being the head CEO or something.

A foolish misconception. Introverted CEOs exist.
According to Forbes Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen is one.

But why would you think this? Because surely there must be special skill right? Surely! So..it must be socializing!

Lmao

Most of them average overall intelligence, maybe slightly higher, with knowledge in their field and/or the kinds of smarts and skills that help you rise in the corporate world.

Some of them are dumb and just got there due to family connections / inheriting wealth.

Some of them are arrogant delusional pricks who think they're super geniuses at everything (and not surprisingly a lot of these also are in the above category).

Extraordinarily replaceable group of people IMO.

Smart enough to get to the top, maybe not the most book smart but gotta be big time street smart.

WingsOfGood posted...

A foolish misconception. Introverted CEOs exist.
According to Forbes Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen is one.

But why would you think this? Because surely there must be special skill right? Surely! So..it must be socializing!

Lmao

Did my comment allude to their being no exceptions? No, it didnt. Also being introverted and being anti social are not one in the same.

From what I've seen in corporate America, people in the managerial track are clueless. It's more about knowing how to manage appearances.

High level engineers are usually incredibly smart though. They're the ones keeping the company running. They're the ones that actually fixes problems and make new things.

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

Smart enough to get to the top, maybe not the most book smart but gotta be big time street smart.

Thats one misconception I wish would disappear. It's the misconception that brought us people like Trump and Musk.

Like it isn't really a testament of brilliance someone with a massive leg up, "rose to the top." Like being born into money or even powerful connections.

Not saying all are smart or lucky, but I do think there's an issue of romanticizing the CEO to be smart businessmen who earned their success simply because they're the CEO. Which gets us a coalition of people just believing people like Musk and Trump have profound wisdom over the masses just because they are richer than most.

Jolly_Bear posted...

Extraordinarily replaceable group of people IMO.

Everyone is replaceable under capitalism.

From the lowest paid worker to the richest CEO, it is not a system that takes care of the individual.

I have worked with enough to know that yes, they are smart. For the vast majority (in large companies), at least above average IQ, and waaaay above average emotional intelligence.

Some people will say otherwise on CE because people on CE like to cope and ridicule to make themselves feel better about their lot in life.

95% of the time it tells you exactly one thing:

Their parents had money.

CIO's are usually pretty intelligent and worked hard for that position

Squall28 posted...

From what I've seen in corporate America, people in the managerial track are clueless. It's more about knowing how to manage appearances.

Indeed - so much of the modern corporate work is inundation with random bullshit - a sociologist from the UK termed a lot of these jobs to be "bullshit jobs" - they often have titles like "compliance specialist" and don't do jack shit half the time.

NatsuSama posted...

Thats one misconception I wish would disappear. It's the misconception that brought us people like Trump and Musk.

Like it isn't really a testament of brilliance someone with a massive leg up, "rose to the top." Like being born into money or even powerful connections.

There are a couple of misconceptions that are huge and really problematic in our society:

First - a lot of Americans think that, if someone is "not book smart"...then they have to be "street smart." No. It's just as likely that they're dumb in both areas and got to where they are because of luck and their parents' connections.

Second - a lot of Americans forget the fact that being born into money and having powerful connections *gives you* a lot of this emotional intelligence because you get the benefit of the doubt and you learn how to speak the language of the wealthy. I'll give you an example:

We all know about Elizabeth Holmes and how she basically conned people into thinking she had invented some revolutionary technology, right? Well, there's an even more extreme case - a girl named Charlie Javice made a website called Frank which helped people with applying for student loans and government assistance for college. She boasted 4 million users and was able to sell her company to JP Morgan Chase and get appointed to a managing director position as a result. Of course, 75% of the customers were actually fake email addresses that Javice had paid a data analyst to generate for her, so JP Morgan fired her, is suing her, and she's been charged by the SEC with various frauds.

The point, of course, is that both Elizabeth Holmes and Charlie Javice were able to con people so easily because of their backgrounds. They were white kids from upper-class families who went to exclusive and expensive private schools (they went to private schools which cost $40,000 per year), they had parents who were well-connected in the world of corporate America, and so their fraudulent products got the benefit of the doubt. If they were not upper-class, wealthy, and reasonably attractive girls, do you think they would have been able to con so many people? Of course not. And that's the same with how many CEOs and executives get to where they are. I'm not saying that every CEO/executive is a fraud (though certainly many are), but they're well-versed in the language of corporate bullshit that gets you ahead even when you don't actually *DO* anything.

bigblu89 posted...

So then why ask the question if you're not going to be satisfied with any answer other than the one that agrees with you?

For example. My boss is technically the CEO of the company, but it's a company that is in an extremely specific genre and employs only 22 people.

He is VERY well versed in the industry, and started the business making a $1000 investment importing some portable phone parts wholesale that he then resold to Mom and Pop electronic stores (back when they existed in the 90s and 2000s) that weren't willing to buy at the volumes he bought them at.

Is he "smart" in the way someone on Jeopary is "smart"? Probably (definitely) not. But is he "smart" in the sense that over the last 30 years he grew the business (between calculated risks of product expansion and the gift of gab) to more than just him and his brother selling these parts from their basement? Obviously. Company grosses about $10 million a year importing and reselling a myriad of electronics parts.

I asked this because I wanted detailed answers like this

C suite execs are smart about their business. Does that mean they know math basics like the Pythagorean theorem? Probably not.

To get that high...communication becomes key whether it's your ideas or not that you're communicating.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

I think they're generally capable in their fields, but:

-It took them a lot of luck and chance to get to where they are (most of the smart ones admit this)
-Their jobs and roles are replaceable and there are tons of people on Earth who could do what they do
-Their capability in one field does not mean that they are capable in other fields
-A lot of them had even more luck and chance than others (i.e. someone like Trump who was born into a real estate holding family)

This, mostly. I would say they are consistently above average, but they don't need to be a long way above average or be exceptionally good at anything in particular. Most just have a set of skills that can be learned, combined with the personality to put the job first.

EDIT to say that founders are a bit of a different beast, and do tend to have subject matter expertise within their industry.

In terms of general intelligence, a bit smarter on average.

In terms of wisdom, no better or worse than average.

most of the people at the top are rather stupid and just chase trends for quick cash with out concern for the long term health of a company

SSj4Wingzero posted...

Indeed - so much of the modern corporate work is inundation with random bullshit - a sociologist from the UK termed a lot of these jobs to be "bullshit jobs" - they often have titles like "compliance specialist" and don't do jack shit half the time.

David Graeber. It's a shame more people don't know him. He talks about how many jobs exist just to boost the self-worth of management, create tasks, or cover inefficiencies, rather than provide fulfilling roles for people.

My favourite line of his is: 'The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently'.

(He was American, by the way. Worked in London as no US University would employ him).

AceMos posted...

most of the people at the top are rather stupid and just chase trends for quick cash with out concern for the long term health of a company

sounds like the doing of shareholders

Silver_Patron posted...

sounds like the doing of shareholders

Yep.

The shareholders want year on year increases, and if the CEO can't deliver, they will be out.

Bump