I keep finding tons of good stuff that I don't have time to blog about, so here are some good links to read.
For the most part, company founders make better CEOs.
Alan Greenspan predicts a revamp of US corporate governance.
Fred Wilson talks about software patents.
Tyler Cowen discusses the benefits and costs of anxiety.
CEOs look at how you treat a waiter to predict character.
Economic growth is driven by women.
Microsoft will launch social search.
Two frightening revelations in your links:
1. Somebody in the business press thinks it’s news that a CEO with a personal commitment to the company does a better job than some carpetbagger.
2. A life rule like “Watch out for people who have a situational value system, who can turn the charm on and off depending on the status of the person they are interacting with/Be especially wary of those who are rude to people perceived to be in subordinate roles” was a revelation to somebody over the age of 6. Yikes.
I don’t see where the survivor bias comes into play – every company had a founder. People who have actually run a business tend to do a better job than people who have studied and consulted about running a business but never actually done so.
“People who have actually run a business tend to do a better job than people who have studied and consulted about running a business but never actually done so”..of course, but that’s pretty irrelevant to the question of leadership in large companies. There are very few large companies whose CEO’s have studied and consulted about running a business but never actually done so. The issue here is whether a company is, in general, better off being run by the individual who founded it N years ago, or by someone who has either had experience in other companies, or who has come up in the same company after its founding.