"End game is a CEO who does not balance his performance and emphasis on success, as well as failure, with his relationship dynamics will not be long for CEO."

How about people who write run-on sentences? Don't CEOs need to have "excellent written and verbal communication skills"?

Dear End Game,

A leader accepts responsibility of failure associated with his/her subordinates. A tyrant blames them. When I look at your point of view of where the pressures come. I see someone looking for ways to shift blame. Even though you claim to neither condone nor defend rampage behvavior...your words speak differently when reviewed in the context of your explanations of where the pressures could come from that might lead to a CEO losing his/her temper.

Your attitude is pervasive in management down to the group leaders of the company I work for. It simply reaks of passing the buck and not stepping forward if you make a mistake.

I'm kept here and paid well because I'm very good at what I do. I will never be a manager level employee here because I accept responsibility for my own errors instead of looking for a scapegoat. My reviews are filled with mistakes that I made. I've seen my peers promoted up the ladder when they played the game only to leave within months after promotion because the crap rolled down hill to them and they had nowhere to let it roll further.

I will not play by those rules, that appear to be your rules as well. Maybe I never will be a CEO..but if being one means acting in the manner that you seem to support..I'd rather be able to live with myself then live the monetary rewards of that position.

It's not actually a run-on sentence. It is, however, rather complex, and I had to read it two or three times to figure it out. A punctuation mark, such as a colon, after the phrase "End game is" would substantially improve it. It could probably be improved even further with rewording, but as-is it doesn't really violate the rules of English.

Wow -- can't believe the follow-up to the original note. While I'll give CEO credit for having strong convictions, these convictions are seriously misplaced.

The note illustrates why Bob always counsels letter-writers to seek new employment when they're in a bad work environment. The environment is unlikely to change for the better, since those in charge (like CEO) haven't the slightest idea that the environment is poisonous. They see clear skies and fresh air where others see a toxic cloud.

CEO is correct that if his workers don't like the environment, they should leave (much as Bob advises). But this also illustrates CEO's greatest weakness as a leader. That statement seems to connotate CEO is the most valuable asset in the organization -- the one factor that must remain stable and present while other employees can come and go. True leaders understand that their workers' *collective* knowledge, skills and experience is the company's most valuable asset, not the CEO. The true leader harnesses and guides their workforce's talent.

The mention of the "team's" failure is also interesting. Is the CEO part of the team? Did the CEO play any role in the failure? The note seems to suggest that only the right hand men and women failed. While this is possible, usually that "teflon" description is cause for concern.

Like Bob & CEO mention, this doesn't mean that leaders must always act like the Dali Lama. Occasionally leaders must show a little "fire." But there are societal limits to the frequency and degree of that "fire." Most importantly, the power of the "fire" is in its *infrequency*, not as a common response to every problem.

I've been around and observed the behaviour and fall out of some extremely bad CxO's and some extremely good ones. It's certainly not hard to tell the difference and sadly, the bad ones outweigh the bad. Unfortunately for everyone the Peter Principle is alive and well and will always be. To point out to those bad ones that they are indeed bad does no good whatsoever, they don't know they are and won't admit it even when faced with their own failure. It makes me wonder why some get it and most don't, but Bob Lewis is one of the rare ones that do. I can't count the number of times I've forwarded one of his articles on to those I work with. In a Dilbert world it gives you hope to see someone who has some very uncommon common sense.

Now, I remember the book: Dinosaur Brains. This guy is a classic,Bob. He uses all of the phrases necessary to give a sense of his own importance.
Lets shine a magnifying glass on his dino-talk

Dint Talk: " Top performers need to be ready and are READY for the grist mill......"

Fact: True top performers are already recruiting his best guys via courtesey, a promise of true team work, and a CEO who has a proven performance workers.

Dino Talk " Its just the economics....... yada yada, yada.
Fact: economics has nothing to do with stupid CEO behavior. It is a convient excuse untill a true economic fact show its face in the form of upper management termination, termination of the CEO, and my favorite: Coorporate takeovers. Remember the golden rule: He who has the most gold rules unless the group has more gold.
" When those you rely on disapoint......."
Fact: When those I rely on disapoint, the fault may be with me. There are times that someone else may be the cause. However, it usually boils down to my giving poor directions or not delivering on the tools needed to assure success.
Dino Talk: s/he will be replaced... and not always with a cushion attached to his/her derriere.
Fact: Granted, his derriere may have a cushion when he is eventually replaced by his kinder, gentler, more effective counterpart.
However, that is not a guarentee anymore. Not all stockholdera are taken with the bottom line. And, no chair or whip for that matter will stop the small group not swayed by the bottom line. They will still decide to take a chunk of his derriere as a souvineer!