The problem I'm having with this letter is that being a CEO is not a license to be an A-hole. And the tone of the letter is, "my job is tough; you just don't understand; get in my way and I'm gonna deck you!"

Hey, hot shot, you want a tough job? Try working in the service industry, at minimum wage, all the while doing a good job as a single parent.

Real politics, the kind worthy of respect, creates a situation whereby a leader can make an important and perhaps difficult point, while the recipients don't feel belittled or infantilized. It's the difference between relating as children, or as professionals and adults.

CEO makes the point that their job is conditional on performance or they are gone. Well, many people work under those terms. And being gone is not the worst thing in the world! No, being a bad human being is the worst thing in the world. You won't last or achieve respect if you choose to treat people like dirt.

All CEO's [and any other manager and any other employee] get results . The issue I think you [Bob] are driving at is getting the "best" or "optimal" or "right" results .

I'm with you; the "best" leaders get the "best" results with the "best" people and that happens when they are treated "the best" - which does not include throwing chairs .

I would also emphasize that a CEO is successful BECAUSE of the people that work for him. The days of the guy on top who could do it all, if they ever existed at all, are long gone.

As Brian points out, many of the lower-level workers are also paid to produce or they are gone. At least the CEO -- if he knows how to manage his personal finances -- has enough money to survive such a situation, unlike those that are earning his glory for him.

It always amazes me when some jerk decides that his temper tantrums are not only ok, but necessary to run the company. Self-indulgence is simply self-indulgence -- not leadership.

This letter is just another example of the current mentality of too many CEO's.
Which begs the question: "Whatever happened to real leadership?"
IMO, it's gone the way of the Dodo and been replaced with a bad combination impression of Captain Bligh and the pre-Christmas Eve Ebeneezer Scrooge.

In my (I'll acknowledge limited) experience, throwing chairs usually won't get results; but it frequently WILL get people's attention. Sometimes (hopefully not frequently) throwing chairs is called for as an attention-getter. It's what happens after you have their attention that separates leaders from petty tyrants.

When ever I hear of the managers (CEO or otherwise) that are on a power trip 24/7 and feel that bullying and belittling are "effective" all I see is someone with a case of arrested emotional development - usually at the maturity level of a third grader in the middle of a tantrum. These types get away with it because they have also developed the ability to schmooze those who are over them i.e. the ability to get away with whatever they want. Although this is a very handy skill to have, it does not contribute much to building true character that earns respect. Have you ever noticed how these types go around saying/implying "I demand your respect" but do absolutely nothing about earning it?

Margaret Thatcher said it best: "Being a leader is a lot like being a lady. If you have to keep reminding people you are one... you are probably not."

Man is a tool-maker and a tool-user. It is that quality that separates us from the apes.

I CAN lift a car with enough people busting their backs. and I'll "get results." Or I can get a floor jack and use one person.

Throwing funrniture is for people too stupid to use tools. They'll "get results," though maybe not the ones they desired. Or perhaps not as efficiently as they otherwise might.

And never tell a paramedic that being a CEO is a "tough job," unless you want to get laughed at.

Tom,

There are an infinite number of ways to get someone's attention without even throwing a temper tantrum -- let alone a chair.

Sheesh.

Whoa! I'm NOT a CEO, but I have been in various leadership positions. I think that if you aren't emotionally suited for that kind of responsibility you should find a way to get out of it, for your sake as well as the sake of the company and everyone who has to put up with you. The trouble is, CEOs that act like this are blissfully unaware that they are jerks. Most of them acquired their positions through connections not competence. Oh how I yearn for a meritocracy.

I think the letter writer has confused emotional immaturity or instability for leadership.

Two words: Tony Dungy. No swearing, no throwing things, just results. A quality guy who's always been a winner, who won the BIG ONE, without raising his voice, in the toughest, macho, testosterone-soaked venue in the world.

THAT'S leadership.

A CEO who throws chairs, screams at people, curses them, issues threats, etc has a problem: he or she creates and maintains a hostile work environment.

It's also a failure in leadership.

Of course, the CEO is free to do as he or she wants until someone takes that firm on with a hostile work environment lawsuit. Does anyone think the people who sit on a jury in Federal court would listen for one minute to any CEO trying to claim that was acceptable behavior in any work environment? The answer is obvious--no.

". . . can both work with this guy and get him to back off a tad - but it is FIRSTLY the person's responsibility, not the CEO's."

Why is the CEO's behaviour not the CEO's responsibility first?

Only poor performers who have no place else to go OR masochists will stay around and take abuse from psychopathic bosses like this one. Don't try to reason with him, he thinks he's OK and everyone that disagrees with him is a loser.

This is a simply incredible letter. The only followers the author will lead are those who are curious enough to see how the CEO gets it in the end. They'll have an office pool where whoever guesses his departure date wins. He's also probably disrespected at all layers of the business he runs, and probably by his customers as well. He probably has a group of high level people including a board memebr or two plotting a coup. You can already imagine the cheering of the employees when he does leave.

Notice how he displaces his responsibility to be less toxic (nasty) and more civilized person on his subordinates. And toxic is the word - its more than a hostile workplace, it's a toxic one.

I agree with most of the responses here - this CEO hasn't a clue what real leadership is all about. Another dimension not explored is that every leader spawns apprentice leaders who follow his example as a model. What a horrid model he is, but now our bully CEO has given inspiration and tacit approval for others to be bullies, many of which will be with the company far more years than he.

I wish he had named what corporation he is CEO of - then we all can dump our stock before he drives his company into the ground.

He's not a leader... he's a tyrant.

A CEO who throws chairs is neither civilized, nor professional. Such conduct by an employee would not be tolerated.

One thing the original correspondent should be taking into consideration is the effect his/her behavior will have on the organization in the long term. Will it be able to recruit the people it needs?

Behaviors s/he described aren't conducive toward recruiting top talent. The best talent usually has their pick of places to go to -- and work environment is frequently an important (if not the deciding) factor in their decision. This doesn't mean self-described talent has a "right" to be mollycoddled but the CEO should think very hard about the long-term health of his/her organization.

About six years ago, Robert Hare pointed out that a lot of the characteristics of a sociopath (or psychopath) -- in particular unrelenting self-interest -- are in fact well aligned with the goals of a company structure:

Read http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

This may explain some of the symptoms we see.

The letter from the CEO reminds of an incident several years ago at one of the larger companies where a scathing assessment of the company and its management was published. The rebuttal letter by the VP proved the former employees point.

I am Bob Sutton, the author of The No Asshole Rule. I find this to be a fascinating initial comment, and an even more interesting more set of responses. The Asshole CE0 who wrote this demonstrates two unfortunate patterns about the effects of power on people:

1. It turns people into selfish-centered jerks. There is a lot of research to support this, see
http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/01/it_isnt_just_a_.html

2. When people in power are successful financially, or win games, we as a society often let them get away with being assholes because they are "worth the trouble." When, in fact, the financial costs they create often mean that they are not worth the trouble.

3. One thing I should add, is that if you like at the weight of the evidence, being an asshole is sometimes a path to getting power -- especially in a I win- you lose system, but it is not effective for leading organizations and people effectively.

As a final point, and many of the comments reflect this. Even if there are times when being an asshole may help individuals and their firms get ahead, the fact is that they are still assholes and it demeans our humanity to grant these cruel people positions of power and prestige.

Way to go Bob Sutton!!! In my opinion also (as one who has worked for a few assholes in my time), these C-level jerks are not worth the trouble they cause. NO ONE should have to put up with nasty, demeaning, abusive and insulting treatment, from a boss or from anyone else, and a boss that tries to justify it (and I DO mean you, Mr. "I am a CEO" has some serious issues with maturity, empathy, and leadership. Your bad behavior is YOUR problem, Sparky, not the poor employees who have to put up with you.

Small business owners can be as big of an a-hole as a CEO.

When I still did "call someone from the phone book" break-fix, I used to run in to the type regularly. They'd fling a bunch of invoices from someone else in front of you, bitching that they still had the same problem. Every one would be notated "Customer is difficult". Most of the time the problem was ancient hardware or software that was not up to the job, combined with the a-hole attitude.

Eventually, especially while prospecting long-term contracts, we paid attention when the prospective client went on about all the trouble he or she had with "the computer guys". Most would have had the same trouble with us, so we didn't bother pursuing the business.

Unfortunately, you have met the new species of manager: the CIO: Chief Inefficiency Officer. Your biggest horror as an employee is to work for one. Your ther horror is to be the real CEO and have somebody like him working directly under you. It eventually ends up with a monster of a legal battle to get rid of him without him taking half the company's assetts with him.
There is one good thing about Mr. chair thrower: chances are that when he leaves, nobody is gona get out of their chairs to follow him.