Personality and attitude in business leadership: comparing Nardelli, McNerney, and Immelt

Working

Business Questions

Recently, the power of positive thinking has been all the rage. People are beginning to believe that if you believe good things will happen to you, they will. While the mysticism behind this belief is up to personal faith and interpretation, it is true that thinking positively will give you a better attitude, and a better attitude usually yields a better lifestyle. For this reason, I don't think comparing the personalities and fortunes of Nardelli, McNerney, and Immelt is coincidental. Because McNerney and Immelt had better personalities, they had better attitudes. It is obvious that Nardelli did not have a good attitude. His anger proved this. While both McNerney and Immelt were successful, Nardelli was not. This does not mean that Nardelli was not successful because he had a poor attitude, but it is not too far fetched to think that this played a role. Nardelli's bad attitude probably made him less fun to be around, so he did not have the benefits of collaboration and mentorship. Also, it is not hard to believe that his bad attitude stifled his creative impulses, made him unhappier with himself, and made his employees perform poorly. All of these things combined can lead to the downfall of the best businessperson.

Question Two

Although I think some jobs require a demeanor of harshness or control, each job can benefit from its workers being "nice." For example, a prison warden or guard could not be as kind and gentle as a ninety-year-old grandmother. In fact, neither could the math teacher in an alternative school for troubled teens. Because both of these jobs require a demonstration of authority, some harshness is needed. Still, these workers can be "nice." They can treat others with respect, offer encouragement, and speak in a way that is uplifting to all. These should be requirements for all jobs. If people are working in an environment with a boss that makes them feel oppressed and unintelligent, they will not work as hard. Collaboration and teamwork are best fostered in environments where everyone can feel comfortable, and it is hard to feel comfortable with impolite bosses and coworkers.

Question Four

While being nice is a trait that can benefit all companies, agreeableness goes by another definition. A person can be considered agreeable if he or she generally does not cause a disturbance. This means that the agreeable person does not question or oppose the majority viewpoint. While this may be perfect for the CEO, board or directors, or boss who just wants a yes man or woman, it is not the best situation for the company that wants a truly intellectual debate, that wants to find the ultimate solution for a problem. Solutions and innovations come from honest discussion, they come from dissent. If a company is filled with agreeable people, it can be assumed that the company is not growing. Instead of seeking agreeableness, which can be associated with submission, companies should look for individuals that have unique backgrounds and experiences to bring to the discussion table. While discussion may from time to tome get heated, it is this heat that refines the glass bulb of an idea in the fire. One can be nice while still being disagreeable. This type of employee is the best possible employee for a company, increasing innovation and moral.

Question Five

The fact that managers score much higher on agreeableness than entrepreneurs exemplifies this point quite vividly. It is the manager's job to manage, to keep everyone working as a team and to handle complaints in a way that does not damage the business' relationship with the customer. In other words, managers have to try to make customers like them. They have to be yes men and yes women to customers each day, sometimes even lying to bring a new customer in. Thus, managers are more agreeable than CEOs because the manager has been taught to contain, agree, and apologize. Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are taught to think, dissent, and grow.