Is There Really Such a Thing as a 'Workaholic'?

There's still no medical definition, but psychologists try their best to separate dedicated employees from true addicts.

When the American psychologist Wayne Oates died in 1999, The New York Times began his obituary by noting two facts. First, the man had authored an astonishing 57 books. Second—and presumably not coincidentally—he had invented the word workaholic. Oates coined the now-ubiquitous term in a 1968 essay, in which he confessed that his own addiction to industriousness had been a disorder akin to substance abuse. Of course, he acknowledged, workaholism is much more socially respectable than drinking a fifth a day—more the sort of personality trait that might help someone, say, earn an obit in the paper of record.

What, precisely, qualifies someone as a workaholic? There’s still no single accepted medical definition. But psychologists have tried to distinguish people merely devoted to their careers from the true addicts. A seminal 1992 paper on how to measure the condition argued that sufferers work not only compulsively but also with little enjoyment [1]. Newer diagnostic tests attempt to single out those who, among other behaviors, binge and then suffer from withdrawal—just as someone would with, say, a gambling or cocaine habit [2].

Even as the precise outlines of workaholism remain a bit fuzzy, various studies have tried to identify its physical and emotional effects. At the risk of carrying on like a Pfizer ad: research has associated it with sleep problems, weight gain, high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression [3]. That’s to say nothing of its toll on family members. Perhaps unsurprisingly, spouses of workaholics tend to report unhappiness with their marriages [4]. Having a workaholic parent is hardly better. A study of college undergraduates found that children of workaholics scored 72 percent higher on measures of depression than children of alcoholics. They also exhibited more-severe levels of “parentification”—a term family therapists use for sons and daughters who, as the paper put it, “are parents to their own parents and sacrifice their own needs … to accommodate and care for the emotional needs and pursuits of parents or another family member” [5].

How many people are true workaholics? One recent estimate suggests that about 10 percent of U.S. adults might qualify [6]; the proportion is as high as 23 percent among lawyers, doctors, and psychologists [7]. Still more people may be inclined to call themselves workaholics, whether or not they actually are: in 1998, 27 percent of Canadians told the country’s General Social Survey that they were workaholics, including 38 percent of those with incomes over $80,000 [8]. (Even among those with no income, 22 percent called themselves workaholics! Presumably some were busy homemakers and students.)

The condition may well have a certain social cachet; as the psychologist Bryan Robinson once put it, work addiction might be “the best-dressed mental health problem” of them all. In one of the rare economic studies on the subject, researchers found that the educated and affluent were much more likely than lower-income Americans to put off retirement, a possible sign of workaholism in action [9]. Such delayed retirement certainly gives new meaning to the phrase worked to death. For what it’s worth, the concept would not raise many eyebrows in Japan, where grueling job hours have long been a norm, and there’s a word for death by overwork—karoshi. The country’s courts have even recognized it as a basis for wrongful-death suits [10].

---

The Studies:

[1] Spence and Robbins, “Workaholism: Definition, Measurement, and Preliminary Results” (Journal of Personality Assessment, Feb. 1992)

[2] Griffiths and Karanika-Murray, “Contextualising Over-Engagement in Work” (Journal of Behavioral Addiction, 2012)

[3] Sussman, “Workaholism: A Review” (Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy, 2012)

[4] Robinson et al., “The Relationship Between Workaholism and Marital Disaffection” (The Family Journal, July 2006)

[5] Carroll and Robinson, “Depression and Parentification Among Adults as Related to Parental Workaholism and Alcoholism” (The Family Journal, Oct. 2000)

[6] Sussman et al., “Prevalence of the Addictions” (Evaluation & The Health Professions, 2011)

[7] Doerfler and Kammer, “Workaholism, Sex, and Sex Role Stereotyping Among Female Professionals” (Sex Roles, 1986)

[8] Kemeny, “Driven to Excel: A Portrait of Canada’s Workaholics” (Canadian Social Trends, Spring 2002)

[9] Hamermesh and Slemrod, “The Economics of Workaholism” (The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008)

[10] Araki and Iwasaki, “Death Due to Overwork (Karoshi)” (Journal of the Japan Medical Association, Feb. 2005)

JORDAN WEISSMANNAUG 14 2013, 8:20 PM ET

5 Ways to Get Promoted in 2013

Forbes - 5 Ways to Get Promoted in 2013

With the holiday season upon us, we begin to reflect upon the ebbs and flows of the past year; our success stories and areas where we can still improve.  This is a time when we begin to   reevaluate our career aspirations and choices and make new decisions.   One thing is for sure:  we must all come to accept that the old ways are not as effective anymore if we are to advance in our careers.  As such, now is the time to think carefully about what it will take for you to get promoted at work in 2013.

I have written frequently about how to get discovered in your work and the importance of building momentum back into your career.  My message is one about being courageous enough to stand out in the crowd – amongst your peers and colleagues.   As you head into 2013, think about how you can begin to sell change, manage your personal brand and create enough of a distinction that you become everyone’s “go to person.”

This is not about self-promotion, but rather how you can be more bold, present new ideas, create a followership, and earn the right to be sponsored at work.  Getting promoted is harder than it’s ever been.   In the past, you just had to perform your job description well, follow the status quo, generate results and show support for the organization’s social responsibility initiatives.    Today, you must also be respected enough to earn a voice at the table – by successfully managing crisis and change, innovating with an entrepreneurial attitude, and diplomatically navigating the political environment at your workplace.

In other words, the ground-rules for getting promoted have evolved and are not as predictable and methodical as they were in the past.  In fact, every company seems to have their own formula and succession plan for getting ahead.  However, there are five ways you can get promoted consistently and organically no matter where you work.

1.      Demonstrate a Strong Capacity for Growth

You must be able to show the ability to evolve your thinking and the capacity to expand your skill sets.    The old ways of being good at something and never expanding your abilities are over.   You must work twice as hard to illustrate your capacity for growth – and this will require you to invest in yourself and your know-how more than ever before.

Identify the 3 – 4 areas in your work that will enable you to grow in your company and contribute in more meaningful and purposeful ways — and then make the effort to invest in those areas.  This may mean taking an extension course, online training, rebuilding your network, etc.  The capacity for growth requires you to have a thirst for knowledge and the ability to learn new things.  You must passionately pursue a desire to assume and handle greater responsibilities.  If not, you will become irrelevant quickly.

Stretch yourself and test your limits.  Most people don’t know their capacity for growth – and this will give you a competitive advantage.

2.      Possess an Attractive Attitude

We have heard it said many times that attitude is everything.   Well…it does count for a lot.   In today’s workplace, you not only have to possess a great attitude – but one that is attractive and likable.    People at work must want to work with you – if they like your attitude, your aptitude has a better chance to be discovered.    Your behavior, the choices you make, your relatability and your overall character are being measured at all times.    Your ability to “fit into” the corporate culture and enable it depends on relational skills that attract others to want to engage with you.    Leaders can detect those who make others want to do better and who attract a crowd of supporters.

Likeability is an incredibly valuable trait when you consider how many people are so miserable in their work.  As such, be helpful, show humility, be optimistic and show your empathy towards others.  Take the time to show interest in others.   Help others to be successful.

Remember, if people don’t like you – they will not trust you.

3.      Have the Courage to Think Big and Take Risks

You must have the audacity to be bold.    This requires you to think, act and innovate in ways that come most naturally do you.   It means that you need to trust your gut and allow your passionate pursuit of purpose to take flight.  It’s your time to showcase the years of hard work that have given you the permission to be bold in this moment.   Put your capabilities to the test.  Seize the opportunity.

How often does your gut tell you to take action during times of adversity – but you don’t.  Instead, you wait for those around you to take the calculated risks that you were hesitant to take yourself?  Sound familiar.

In 2013, you must trust yourself enough to take action.  Don’t wait.   The courageous ones may not always win, but more often than not, they will be respected.

4.      Earn the Trust of Others

When your boss says, “I am not worried about your performance” – this is a sign of trust.    During a time when people have trouble trusting others let alone themselves, building followership because you are trustworthy is a powerful asset – and essential for getting promoted.

Being trusted by others is not earned just because you are likeable.   You must know how to build rapport, be a strong communicator, present the right credentials, be a master at conflict resolution, and be diplomatic with people.   These are the keys to building trust in your workplace as I discuss in detail in my article – Effective Managers Earn Trust Quickly By Doing 5 Things Well.

5.      Be Loyal At All Costs

Being loyal to your company and the brand you serve is paramount to your success.  As those who have done it successfully will tell you, “I drink the company Kool-Aid because I like the taste.”  In other words, your personal values must align with those of your organization in order for you to be unconditionally loyal.   You know this to be true when, for example, your loyalty is tested by the temptation of internal gossip, or when the executive recruiter calls you about the job your competitor wants to offer you.

Loyalty is a powerful trait that measures one’s character in an instant.

For example, I will never forget the job offers I received from competitors during my tenure at Sunkist.    While these other companies offered to pay me more money, they could never replace my responsibilities at the time, future opportunities, and the camaraderie and trust I had built with my colleagues and the executive team.    As difficult as the temptations were, my loyalty to Sunkist paid off and led to multiple promotions.

Getting promoted requires a lot more than just what your job description demands.    As you begin to map-out your career goals for 2013, I strongly urge you to integrate these five principles into your plan.  Hold yourself accountable.  Be responsible.   Allow your integrity to flourish.   Enjoy your promotion!

by Glenn Llopis, Forbes.com

 

 

 

 

 

Collective Leadership

3/29/2013

By Maria Collar

 

 

For more than 10 years, business leaders have been challenged by a flatter, more connected world to find innovative solutions to the issues created by globalization of the workplace. New leadership models are needed in this flatter world because most traditional approaches were not developed for 21st century realities.
In today’s volatile markets, where abilities to explore and innovate are greatly valued, traditional command-and-control hierarchies are impediments to creativity. As the world’s workplaces become more diverse, corporate leaders are urged to transform workplaces into more-complex, interconnected and dynamic living organisms.
To create such environments, business leaders must move away from traditional command-and-control leadership and toward shared responsibility and mutual accountability. This transition does not lead to a lack of discipline. It instills in employees a joint vision deeply rooted in a strategic direction.
Collective leadership is a 21st century solution for 21st century needs. It inspires transformation, participation and collaboration, and conveys passionate commitment. By offering equal partnership, collective leaders enable openness, transparency, collaboration, accountability and empowerment at all levels. This type of leader adopts a facilitating, outcome-driven style and bears the primary responsibility of developing talent that aligns with the strategic direction. Leaders respond to the question “How can our talented employees gain collective action to the business process to effectively execute strategy goals and objectives?”
Follow these five principles to unleash the potential of collective leadership:
Share responsibility and accountability. Focus on empowering employees. Transform corporate culture into a dynamic and high-performing ecosystem.
Align strategic direction to talent. Leaders who take care to keep strategic direction and the capabilities of talent aligned face fewer productivity issues. Engage employees in assessing capabilities and empower them to take ownership of their development.
Provide different opportunities. Leaders must create the right conditions and provide different opportunities to develop talent. Collective leadership means giving employees equal access to development opportunities.
Create “win-win” agreements. Build cooperation through a variety of structures, including management committees and training programs for alternative dispute resolution. Reduce grievances while providing a clear passage to equal partnership under common direction.
Adopt a style that supports all employees. Leaders who create and sustain an environment in which employees at all levels collaborate to achieve a common goal enable strategic direction.
Hierarchal leadership does not fit 21st century business demands for agility and innovation. Democratic leadership inspires and empowers employees. Collectively empowering team members to shape an environment in which they operate will lead to an integrated workforce that maintains a dynamic presence in today’s volatile marketplace.

Maria Collar is chief consultant at Serendipity Consulting Services, a human capital consulting firm in Buffalo, N.Y.

Setting Standards

A fierce dispute has erupted within the HR community over the creation of standards aimed at enabling investors to better understand the value of the HR function. Critics say the effort will add a costly mandate that will mostly benefit "companies that are seeking to make an acquisition, raid talent or apply competitive pressure."

By Tom Starner

Thursday, May 31, 2012

The Society for Human Resource Management's efforts to develop an "investor metric" standard to "help the investment industry determine the value of human capital and report on it easily" has come under fire by some in the HR community.

The proposed standard would have companies disclose almost every corporate cost associated with the hiring, retention and training of employees and contingent workers, plus detailed information regarding how the company is organized and staffed, says Dan Yager, president and general counsel of the HR Policy Association, a Washington-based membership group that represents HR executives at 335 large employers. 

"In our letter [to SHRM], we point out that the investor community is not asking for this information," Yager says, who notes that HRPA's member companies are public companies and would be "the main target for this standard."

"The concern is, while there is certainly value to HR metrics, this is not the place to try to fashion them and then turn them into something that would really be of no use to investors," he says. "The only use of the data will be either for companies that are seeking to make an acquisition, raid talent or apply competitive pressure."

Both the HR Policy Association and the American Staffing Association have asked SHRM to drop the effort to create an investor-metric standard.

Their opinions were sent by letter during a 45-day comment period -- that ended May 24 -- following the release by SHRM of a first draft of the proposed standard on April 10.

SHRM, which began the process at the request of the American National Standards Institute, has worked with a task force of 166 HR practitioners, line managers, academics and consultants, from public and private organizations nationwide, to create such an investor-metric standard.

SHRM says the work group is merely guiding the process for the formulation of standards -- not creating the actual standards. The criteria for the standards are created by ANSI, says Lee Webster, director of HR standards at SHRM.

Among other metrics, the initial draft proposes a "formula for spending on human capital," including data on direct cost of employees (salaries, stock options, pensions, payroll taxes, etc.), costs "in support" of employees (housing, communications, etc.) and costs "in lieu" of employees (contingency workforce, outsourcing, etc.), combined with direct costs of training and development.

There are also data metrics requested for costs associated with talent retention, leadership depth, leadership quality and employee engagement.

Webster says the SHRM task force has a dual role in the process.

One is to act as the designated HR Standards Secretariat body for ANSI. In that role, SHRM has process or oversight responsibility, mainly to ensure that the process for formulating ANSI standards is followed.

"We are agnostic of the content, but concerned [with] how the standards are created," Webster says.

In its second role, SHRM represents just a single entity among the 166 individuals on the work group -- which represents many organizations.

"What we have is a single point-of-view, one vote," Webster says. "The letters [from HR Policy and the ASA] are fine when talking about the HR point of view as to why they don't want these metric standards, but when they went into what investors want, it's not their area of expertise."

Webster says the effort to create an investor-metric standard is not some "reckless attempt to throw more stuff on the table," as it was portrayed in the letters from HRPA and ASA.

In addition, he adds, the process is far from over, as there will be another 45-day public comment period following the next draft.

"If, through all that process, the work group cannot achieve a consensus, then the project will not go forward," he says. "But it's doubtful that will be the outcome. Those who are against these standards are invited to participate as members, where they can have some meaningful input into the process."

Webster adds that ANSI designated SHRM as the exclusive U.S. developer of human resource standards in early 2009.  

In 2011, SHRM partnered with ANSI to release a workplace-violence prevention and intervention standard. And the cost-per-hire standard, released in 2012, is the first American national HR standard.

All told, standards on employee and labor relations, staffing and workforce planning, compliance and regulatory, and metrics and measures are in the process of being developed, he says.

"All SHRM-sponsored HR standards are developed with the involvement of those who are affected by the standard," Webster says. "Even if we were to walk away from it from a SHRM standpoint -- which would be tough to do -- the international community is very supportive of this effort as well. It is going to happen; Pandora's Box is opened."

Webster says the real issue is whether ASA and HR Policy and its members want to be part of the standard formulation "or do they want to keep throwing stones at the process?"

Yager says, however, that HRPA believes the true value of metrics is for internal purposes only. Plus, the human capital data being required under the proposed standards is so unique -- needing to be "put in a context" for each employer -- that it is worthless for investors.

"Our concern also is that, while voluntary, this will be turned into a mandate -- a rigid mandate -- ... that is extremely hard to do and has very little value to anyone," he says, comparing the investor-metric standard concept to poorly thought out federal legislation.

"We are going after the premise of the whole exercise," he says. "It would be like legislation on Capitol Hill, where the legislation itself is objectionable on face value. What we are saying is to not go forward with this process. The fundamental premise is flawed."

When asked if he polled the HR Policy membership on the metric-standard effort, Yager says he has not heard from anyone who has supported it.

"Not a single member company has said it is a good idea," says Yager, who notes that HRPA often works closely as "strong allies" with SHRM on employment issues.

"Many members, of course, support the development of metrics for internal use. And I believe the other efforts SHRM has been undertaking for those kinds of purposes have been very valuable. But, even if these are voluntary in the beginning, they will become expected. And that could turn into a mandate."

In addition, Yager says -- and it is stated in HR Policy's letter to SHRM -- that what the group also finds objectionable is how "self-serving" several of the proposed requirements for the metric are. In particular, many of the standard's requirements appear to be written primarily for the benefit of consulting organizations that sell HR services to HRPA member companies.

Bottom line, Yager says, companies disclosing the information would be placed at considerable competitive disadvantage relative to organizations seeking to raid their talent; competitors trying to gain insights into how they are organized, staffed and structured; and hedge funds and other entities seeking financial prey.

"Also, there would be a tremendous cost burden added to HR, which has enough to manage right now as it is," Yager says. "While the information might be of interest to certain segments of the investor community, the cost of developing this data would far outweigh its benefits."

Webster counters by saying that employers already are or should be capturing this data anyway.

"We are not trying to create some new thing, but trying to normalize what we should be creating so investors can compare companies fairly and equitably," he says. "In the end, it will be important for public companies to have these metrics in place and keep them up to date. Investors are interested in financial stability."

SHRM's position going forward, Webster says, will be to continue to work with the other members of the task force and review all comments. He also sent a letter to ASA and HR Policy, thanking them for their comments and asking them to participate in the effort.

"We are going to adopt the ANSI standards and present the final draft to our members," he says. "We may even ultimately disagree with the standards, but it has to be done via the ANSI process. We want it done well, done right."

ANSI Note of Clarification

Copyright 2013© LRP Publications

CEO Head-To-Head: Steve Jobs vs. Richard Branson

As host of BBC CEO Guru, I am fortunate to meet many of the world’s top CEOs every week. I often get asked who’s the best CEO I’ve ever met and to make comparisons between the biggest CEO Gurus. Now there is one pair I get asked about the most…

So Who Is the Ultimate CEO Guru Out Of Richard Branson Of Virgin And The Late Steve Jobs of Apple?

Most CEOs are ranked based on hard shareholder value, and the impact that their companies have made, typically on a single industry. For a true CEO Guru, the measures of achievement need to be much higher and taken over a longer time period. CEO Gurus therefore should deliver massive long-term sustainable value. Their work must impact on our individual lives and move the world forward. They also need to have a distinctive leadership style and system that helps bring their magic to life. Their efforts should withstand the test of time and serve as an inspiration to others.

Branson and Jobs and the first two candidates for entry into our Hall Of Fame Of The Top 30 CEOs Of All Time. Any other CEO Gurus you think could also make the cut? I encourage you to propose your personal favorites and I will feature the most interesting ones in a future CEO Head-To-Head.

Steve "Genius" Jobs vs. Richard "Challenger" Branson

Our CEO Head-To-Head starts here, looking at the following five criteria:

(1) Massive & Sustainable Value Creation

Jobs – 8/10

It seemed somewhat counterintuitive that, in January 2013, 16 months after his untimely death, Harvard Business Review named Steve Jobs the Best CEO In The World. However, there was no arguing with the financials, as in his second tenure as CEO of Apple between 1997 and 2011, Jobs increased its market capitalization by $359bn and created total shareholder return of 6,682%. In recent years, Apple has yo-yoed with Exxon Mobil as the most valuable company in the world.

The legacy Jobs left Tim Cook, his anointed successor, was particularly strong on two levels: first, he left Apple a money-making machine, with gross margins of over 42%; second, in innovation, Jobs already had several future product launches stored up. However, as we have seen those play out under Cook – one slightly improved iPhone, iPad and Mac after another – the charge is that the mighty Apple has become more iterative than innovative. Much has been made of the recent fall in Apple’s share price – from a peak of over $700 to about $450 today – but bears should note that this is still over 18% higher than on the date of Jobs’ death on October 5th 2011. Jobs’ previous choice of a CEO for Apple, John Sculley in 1983, nearly led the company to bankruptcy, and there’s now a question mark surrounding Tim Cook. Apple still has great products and its $100bn cash pile is a good problem to have – can it now successfully expand into new product categories, such as TV (Jobs said in 2011 that he had “finally cracked it”), watches or even cars?

Branson – 7/10

Richard Branson is known as the only person in the world to have created eight separate billion-dollar companies from scratch, each in a different sector. He has also created several millionaires among his executive team. Branson currently holds the rank of #261 on the Forbes List of Billionaires. It’s hard to judge Virgin’s sustainable value creation in financial terms, as most parts of the business are private companies.

One of the challenges for Virgin is that its airlines are very capital intensive, with added uncertainty around oil prices and its delayed orders for the new Airbus A380. Also, Virgin Atlantic, despite its new tie-up with Delta, is still something of a niche player. Longer-term, as so much of the value in the Virgin brand is tied up in Branson himself and his pioneering ideas, there’s a legacy risk that Virgin would become just another corporation, and that the brand couldn’t survive without him.

(2) Impact On Individuals’ Lives

Jobs – 10/10

If you look around any office, city street or commuter train, Apple products are everywhere. Jobs’ “magical” iDevices have are now embedded as part of our day-to-day lives. People have appreciated beautiful product design, ultra-portability and ease-of-use. For many, Apple has become a status badge, one of the things they connect with as part of their identity. Faced with growing competition from Samsung and the charge that it could be losing its X-factor, Apple’s latest ‘This Is Our Signature’ ad is very much a restatement of the core Jobs philosophy: its strapline states, “We simplify, we perfect, until everything we touch enhances life.”

Branson – 7/10

Branson has gained a formidable reputation as a “challenger” CEO, shaking up established industries with an unforgettable brand that stands for quality, innovation and a sense of fun. Branson said in his 2009 book ‘Business Stripped Bare: Adventures of a Global Entrepreneur’, that if there was one company in the world he could have bought or merged with then it would have been Apple. We are touched by the Virgin service at certain key moments (usually of leisure), but probably less so than by Apple in our everyday individual lives. Virgin’s total impact on individual lives is also limited by not having a true global footprint, with limited involvement in China.

However, in disrupting industries from air travel to rail to TV to health clubs, Branson should be also given due credit for improving the competition. British Airways and Sky TV customers would probably agree that their service has improved by having to keep up with Sir Richard.

(3) Leadership Style, Culture & System

Jobs – 6/10

Jobs ruled with a combination of inspiration and fear. He operated what I call a “hub and spoke” leadership system. He was a genius firmly at the center of every major decision, and many minor ones too. He was obsessive over fine details of both hardware and software products, running Apple with an almost paranoid approach to secrecy in new product development. The abrasive Jobs could also be a bully, which let him down a bit. Yet he also gave Apple its swagger.

For all his faults, his official biographer Walter Isaacson concludes that “he built a company where leaps of the imagination were combined with remarkable feats of engineering”. Jobs’ Apple was “filled with creative designers and daredevil engineers who could carry forward his vision”. In leading, he had a small number of trusted people, who were talented deliverers. Those with whom he developed a special bond, like Executive VP of Design, Sir Jony Ive, thrived. Those who modeled his dictatorial style in their mini-fiefdoms, notably Scott Forstall, VP of iOS Software, also did well, until being fired by his successor CEO Tim Cook for not being sufficiently “collaborative”. Jobs claims that his crowning achievement was not any individual product, but Apple itself: a lasting company, endowed with his DNA. Tim Cook is praised as being more of a team player, but the jury is still out on whether, under him, Apple can maintain his predecessor’s edge.

Branson – 8/10

With his own private island and daredevil image as something of a global playboy, you probably wouldn’t accuse Richard Branson of spending too much time in the office. However, what he lacks in attention to detail, Branson makes up for in his ability to inspire others to greatness, and infect them with his sense of fun. He exudes charm and charisma, as well as a groundedness that means he is always prepared to pitch in. He is bold and decisive, essential qualities in an entrepreneur, and his favorite business motto is “screw it, let’s do it”.

Within the Virgin Group corporate structure, Branson himself has always had the titles of founder and chairman. He has been particularly shrewd in hiring industry experts to do the day-to-day business of running his various companies. CEO lieutenant Steve Ridgway served an impressive 23 years at Virgin Atlantic, while the financially numerate Stephen Murphy has worked with him for 18 years as Group CEO.

(4) Moving Society Forward & Wider Contribution

Jobs – 9/10

Official biographer Walter Isaacson argues that Jobs’ “passion for perfection and ferocious drive revolutionized six industries: personal computers, animated movies, music, phones, tablet computing, and digital publishing. You might even add a seventh, retail stores, which Jobs did not quite revolutionize but did reimagine.”

As a society, Jobs’ products have made us feel more comfortable with technology. His iTunes Store has given a lifeline to a piracy-stricken music and movies industry. The mighty Apple ecosystem that now exists has not just locked in customers and cemented loyalty, it has created a $10bn app economy and a snowball effect that has opened up new possibilities and made us more connected.

However, Jobs’ focus on a “few great things” may however ultimately limit the dent that Apple finally makes on the universe. He was no philanthropist, and despite his carefully crafted image as an LSD-taking creative liberal, he was a classic capitalist. At his final public appearance before his death, at Cupertino Town Hall (the town where Apple is headquarted), he was asked whether Apple would like to create a free Wi-Fi network for local residents. He replied: “I've always had the view that we pay taxes and the city should do those things.”

Cut off at his prime, it is society’s loss that we didn’t have at least another decade of Jobs. We can wonder whether he would have mellowed, and moved into a legacy-focused “elder statesman” phase of life. I suspect that he would probably have stayed much the same. But I am sure that his personal genius would have created another wave of products and services that would again have moved the world forward.

Branson – 9/10

Branson is impressive on this front, now spending the majority of his time on his ambitious global projects and philanthropic efforts. He has committed $3bn and 10 years’ worth of profits from his travel businesses to develop new renewable technologies and fight climate change. He has also founded Virgin Unite, a non-profit foundation, and states the mission as follows:

“We unite people and entrepreneurial ideas to reinvent how we live and work in the world to help make people’s lives better. Our aim is to do our bit to revolutionize the way businesses, government and the social sector work together – driving business as a force for good. We also incubate new, independent approaches to leadership including the Elders, the Carbon War Room, and the Branson Centers of Entrepreneurship.”

Furthermore, Branson is thinking about the next planet as well as the current one, pioneering the boundaries of mankind with ventures such as underwater cities and Virgin Galactic.

(5) Followership (Both Real World And Social Media)

Jobs - 8/10

Jobs had a very strong personal brand, and for years enjoyed a cult following. It began with a core of creative rebels and slight misfits, who placed themselves firmly in the Apple camp when it came to the “I’m A Mac, I’m A PC” ads. As Jobs churned out one hit product after another, from the iPod to the iPhone to the iPad, his tribe grew, winning over many former skeptics, who had previously dismissed Apple as all style and no substance.

Jobs was a master of spin, famed for his “reality distortion field”. The promise of his products was “it just works”: his beautiful glass iPhone 4, with its antenna integrated into its stainless steel frame, didn’t drop calls, you were just “holding it wrong”. He never embraced social media – he preferred to retain absolute control of the message and the environment, and his legendary keynote product launches were his true stage. This didn’t stop a satirical ‘Fake Steve Jobs’ from gaining 460k followers on Twitter. Skeptical of focus groups, Jobs wasn’t immune however from customer feedback, and would occasionally personally respond to customer emails with a terse one-line response.

Branson – 9/10

As I wrote on July 16th, when publishing ‘The World Of CEOs Social Media Top 30’, the first global ranking of its kind, Branson is the undisputed king of social media. He boasts 3.3m followers on Twitter, 2.2m followers on LinkedIn, has a ‘Klout’ score of 91 out of 100 and is an active blogger.

Branson’s notoriety of course pre-dated social media, and over the years he has gained millions of dollars worth of free PR from his numerous publicity stunts. His business books, such as his autobiography ‘Losing My Virginity’ have also been bestsellers. Sometimes considered more of a celebrity than a CEO, Branson has displayed an admirable ability to magnify himself and his personal brand through PR and social media. I deduct one point from his score here as he is yet to do it in China.

Like with Jobs, Branson’s expansive personality brings with it a legacy risk that he is a one-off and his reputation-led followership model is not repeatable.

So Who’s The Ultimate CEO Guru?

It’s a very close-run thing between Jobs and Branson. The criteria we are applying is exceptionally high. They have very different and neither is perfect; both are incredibly gifted people. As both score 40+/50 it means that they can both justifiably be regarded as a CEO Guru and so enter the CEO Hall Of Fame.

My sense overall is that Steve Jobs is unrivaled for his personal genius, impact on our lives and value creation. In terms of individual contribution, and what one person’s done with a company, nobody has achieved more. However, on the broader criteria of being a CEO Guru, he gets marked down due to his difficult leadership style. As Jobs’ biographer writes, “he was not a model boss or human being, tidily packaged for emulation. Driven by demons, he could drive those around him to fury and despair.”

Through Virgin, Branson has maybe not achieved as much to impact on all our lives directly, but he has been fantastic at magnifying himself beyond his own company. By creating a positive pioneering spirit of “anything is possible”, he has inspired so many of us to do great things.

Very difficult to choose between them. For the wider impact he has had on our lives, Jobs takes it. So congratulations, Steve Jobs. Only just. However let's see what Richard Bransondoes in the next chapter of his life.

The challenge for the next decade of CEO Gurus will be to go beyond Jobs and Branson. I believe future CEO Gurus will need to have their own brand of personal magic like Branson and Jobs, but that they will also be better at being personal leaders. The big challenge will be how to create an environment where they can harness the best efforts and collective magic of their people across the world not just their own.

By Steve Tappin

Is Controversy Good For Business? - by Jonah Berger

From Anthony Weiner to Mountain Dew, controversial stories have flooded the news. But does controversy hurt or help?

Controversy has been in the news a lot lately. While thousands of New Yorkers stand behind Anthony Weiner’s run for Mayor, his sexting scandal has threatened to overwhelm his politics.Rolling Stone magazine sparked a heated debate and fame after it put Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover. Mountain Dew pulled an ad after people complained it was racist and JC Penney took down a billboard after a social media firestorm suggested the kettle on it looked like Hitler.

But can controversy be good for business? Does it boost buzz? Might it increase sales? As I discuss in Contagious: Why Things Catch On, the answers may not be as simple as they seem.

Controversy and Buzz

Controversy does two things. First, controversy makes things more interesting to talk about. It’s pretty boring if everyone has exactly the same opinion, so a little bit of dispute keeps discussion stimulating. The different sides get to air their views and the debate can encourage conversation.

At the same time, however, controversy also generates discomfort. Ever tried to talk about abortion at a crowded party? Probably not. It’s just plain uncomfortable to discuss. Particularly if you don’t know people that well, you don’t want to offend them. People care what others think of them, so they may avoid talking about highly controversial things to avoid rubbing others the wrong way.

So what does that mean for controversy and conversation? Well, our research finds that some controversy boosts buzz, but too much reduces it. A billboard that looks like Hitler if you squint the right way? Moderately controversial and likely to be discussed. Partial birth abortions or open carry firearm laws? Highly controversial and less likely to be discussed.

It also depends on who people are talking to. We’re more comfortable discussing controversial topics with friends because they already know us pretty well. They’re not judging us solely based on that one conversation. Even if it goes a little rocky, they’ll still stick with us.

Controversy and Sales

When it comes to sales, the effect of controversy depends a lot on the type of brand being discussed. Mountain Dew wants people to think they’re edgy. Competing for cool kid on the block with the likes of Red Bull and Monster Energy is tough, so they need to do something to stand out. For them, having a moderately controversial ad isn’t a terrible idea. It gets people talking, and the brand gets to play both sides. They can publicly apologize and pull the ad, appealing to their tamer customers, but the ad lives on in perpetuity online, so their teen fans can still find it. And the fact that the ad was pulled suddenly makes it seem even cooler.

For brands like JC Penney though, or politicians like Anthony Weiner, the downsides of controversy may outweigh the benefits. JC Penney isn’t looking to be edgy. The brand wants to seem mainstream and middle-of-the-road. So while moderate controversy might get the brand some free press, it’s not clear that press is what they want in the long run. Anthony Weiner faces similar problems. He may have good ideas, but if people don’t feel like they can trust him, it’ll be hard for him to win.

Controversy,then, is the proverbial double-edged sword. While a little garners attention, too much can hurt, and it may not be the type of attention most people or brands want.