Some quotes:
"Salary also depends on DNA. Around 40% of the variation between people's incomes is attributable to genetics."
"[Arvey et al's] study suggests that genes help explain extroversion only in women. In men, this trait is instilled environmentally. Businesswomen, it seems, are born. But businessmen are made."
"Surprisingly [in another study], a group member's testosterone did not predict his or her status within the group. What the researchers did discover, though, is that the greater the mismatch between testosterone and status, the less effectively a group's members cooperate."
I confess to choosing some particularly provocative thoughts out of a quite balanced survey, but these three ideas get to the specific question quite quickly: is there an aspect of biological study that might lead to more intense insight into fields previously left to the study of psychology? When we examine the interactions of organizations, where we used to look at personalities and relationships, should we instead be looking at gene profiles, hormones and pheromones?
The article notes that genetic expression is regulated by environmental factors but wonders nonetheless about the potential worth of this information for those who must make management decisions--if we already try to look for personalities that fit and benefit the organization, could/should/can we look at something more?
No, I don't know what I think.
Russell West Jr.
This article makes quite a bold statement. If we are genetically predestined to be good or bad managers or business people then what is left for us to do? It is mind-numbing to consider that we could only be capable to succeed based on DNA, and forget nurturing, and education for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI instinctively disagree with whatever statistics there are about the genetics basis of good managing. Certainly, sometimes real world can be a Darwinian survival of the fittest struggle for success, however, I am inclined to believe that the attributes that allow us to succeed can be absorbed, learned and internalized from a variety or different sources. Bennis and Nanus article, "Management vs. Leadership" contains some insightful information about the question of good management and leadership. It does not, of course, include any type of DNA argument, on the contrary, it emphasizes that we are very often limited to poor management education. Bennis and Nanus argue that schools teach only problem solving skills to management students, which does not necessarily provide them with good managerial skills. Instead of management education they recommend leadership education. I agree with them. Management and leadership can be taught to any students who is willing to learn, even to those that might be found genetically deficient for management.