Ironically it doesn't communicate what 'success' is. Is someone who's earning $100 million a year successful by definition? Mozart died in poverty. So did Van Gogh. Were they succesful or not? Did they have these skills?
And so on.
In fact, like the rest of NLP, it's rather a glib and superficial list of attributes - perfect for sunny-side-up management consultancy meetings where the aim is a bit of light challenge followed by ego fluffing and corporate cheerleading, but perhaps not quite the deep insight it appears to be.
In the real world the defining characteristic of 'successful' executives seems to be pig-headed stupidity and an asteroid-sized sense of entitlement. There's the odd exception who can demonstrate a track record of strategic foresight, but it's much easier to find execs barreling through their careers with an almost total lack of self-awareness, empathy for others, or connection to the real world, defining their 'success' in short-term gains and newspaper column inches, and 'communication' as absolute and total control over the corporate message.
Perhaps there's a reason the UK and US MBAs are notoriously bad managers?
