OK, I'm very skeptical of the correlational results, and feel a bit guilty posting this. But... on the other hand:
1) This is pretty entertaining!
2) Pollution aside, I do buy into the narrative that selection bias for lucky risk-takers explains a lot of bad leaders:
>Superfund CEOs, by contrast, are more likely to take high-variance internal risks — such as aggressive restructuring — that sometimes generate standout outcomes. When these gambles pay off, they are difficult to distinguish from skill. Firms, observing only results, may systematically promote risk-takers...
Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5270031
OK, I'm very skeptical of the correlational results, and feel a bit guilty posting this. But... on the other hand:
1) This is pretty entertaining! 2) Pollution aside, I do buy into the narrative that selection bias for lucky risk-takers explains a lot of bad leaders:
>Superfund CEOs, by contrast, are more likely to take high-variance internal risks — such as aggressive restructuring — that sometimes generate standout outcomes. When these gambles pay off, they are difficult to distinguish from skill. Firms, observing only results, may systematically promote risk-takers...