

Great CEOs Must be Either Technical or Financial - ___Calv_Dee___
http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/03/09/great-ceos-must-be-either-technical-or-financial/

======
jonnathanson
The problem with this article is that Rao keeps his key criteria, "technical"
and "financial," pretty loosely defined and conveniently flexible. Steve Jobs,
for instance, gets a pass as "technical" under Rao's framework. While there's
no question that Jobs had a profound understanding of technology, he couldn't
have built Apple's first products by himself. Or, arguably, with the help of
any old technical co-founder. In Steve Wozniak, he had no less than a once-in-
a-generation technical genius at his side. Jobs had unparalleled technical
vision, but he was not "technical" in the way that, say, Bill Gates was
"technical." And yet, jobs was a tremendously effective CEO.

Furthermore, Rao's assertion that Jobs lacked "people skills" is demonstrably
false. It's true that Jobs was an unrelenting perfectionist, an introvert, at
times a genuine asshole, and probably narcissistic. But to say he lacked
"people skills" is to ignore his profound understanding of how to communicate
with people. How to inspire people, be they co-founders, employees, or
customers. How to move people. These skills had to be quite strong, indeed, in
order to overcome the barriers his difficult personality erected around him.
When we speak of "people skills," we really need to define what we're talking
about. If we're simply talking about being an affable guy, then no, most CEOs
probably don't pass the test. But if we're talking about the ability to
understand, speak to, lead, organize, and often downright manipulate people,
then yes, "people skills" are pretty crucial.

~~~
twelve45
I think it could be argued though that Jobs probably had a good idea of what
is feasible with current technology, and this allowed him to push his team to
deliver something that is just _slightly_ beyond the envelope.

I'd consider this similar to how he was said to have very good taste in
design, even though he may not have been able to design things all by himself.

~~~
jonnathanson
That's a fair point.

If we're defining "technical" as having a deep understanding of where
technology is headed, and what its implications on various markets will be,
then yes, being technical seems to convey a pretty distinct advantage in the
C-suite. Conversely, lacking such an understanding dooms your company's fate
to chance. You could get lucky and avoid disruption, or stumble into
evolution. But, just as likely, you could miss major upside or fall into major
downside. In this sense, to be technical is to have the ability to steer your
own ship (for better or for worse). Not to be technical is to allow the
currents to carry you where they may (often for worse).

~~~
doodyhead
He is also specific about what he means:

"Technology skills do not necessarily mean hands-on skills, though they can
arise from hands-on experience. It means simply understanding the
technological state of play in the environment in a way that you can make
exceptional decisions.

But the skills do have to be exceptional, even if they are not hands-on."

~~~
robrenaud
But in using "exceptional" in the definition, the author basically gets a free
pass. You cannot make predictions based on his definition of technical. You
only know a decision was exceptional with hind sight.

Ergo, the best CEOs are the "technical" ones, but not in the classic sense
where technical means provided ingenious solutions to problems.

------
overgard
The author of this article (Venkatesh Rao) also is the person behind the
highly entertaining "gervais principle" series:
[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-
the-office-according-to-the-office/)

------
mattmaroon
This might have been a good article if there were any data at all to back up
any assertion. There are just a couple mildly amusing anecdotes (Bill Gates
was technical!) where real data might actually be possible.

------
astrofinch
Being a jerk CEO could be a high variance strategy: a few very visible big
winners and lots of less visible losers.

------
malachismith
I'm sure we can all list a dozen great CEOs off the tops of our heads who are
neither -- unless we do as the author has done and redefine each to be so
broad they are meaningless. Really dumb article.

------
adrianwaj
I remember Scott McNealy saying he (and presumably his team) underestimated
the impact and importance of 32 bit computing and concentrated on 64 bit.
That'd be a strategic technical oversight. Maybe they wanted people to go to
thin-clients. I suppose the key when you're that big is to work out when you
do or can shape trends, and when you can and must follow them. Not sure
Jonathan Schwartz corrected course, or by then too late.

~~~
tlb
That's not the reason _I_ stopped using Suns. They annoyed me by switching to
an aesthetically ugly unix. They priced their machines for their finance
industry customers, then Intel + open source unix boxes caught up in
performance for 1/4 the price.

------
rhizome
Good old Forbes, providing a forum for their preferred business
configurations. The author bases the entire article on a strawman of "CEOs,"
but monolithic stereotypes help no one.

------
joejohnson
For a moment I thought that said "Great CEOs Must be Ethical..." Of course,
that's false.

------
shingen
"Fast forward to today, and as a recent insightful post pointed out, even the
"non-technical" members of famous founding pairs like Gates/Allen or
Jobs/Wozniak have been extremely technical."

So, uhm, when were either Gates or Allen ever considered non-technical? (even
relatively speaking) Which of the pair is supposedly the less technical
founder? Both were extraordinarily technical. Hey Rao, your ignorance is
showing.

------
Chirag
Kind of disagree, CEO - Should be from more from Sales than Tech/Finance.

As CEO's main job is to get more money, get new partnerships in place, etc.

founders/products architects can be Tech/Finance.

~~~
wtvanhest
I have a soft spot for sales after spending nearly 5 years in commercial real
estate brokerage.

Sales is tough, very valuable and absolutely crucial to almost every
organization.

But...

If a CEO doesn't present a technical advantage or cannot model their own
company financially, they can probably only grow it so big.

That being said, some sales CEOs are great for maintaining a business:

Intel's CEO, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Otellini> Otellini is one of
the few CEO's in America that came from a sales background. I would argue that
he is also very strong in finance and strong technically in the sense that he
understands how the pieces go together.

My point is that it is always dangerous to generalize, but I don't see how
someone can grow a business successfully and not have a deep understanding of
finance. Understanding how decisions impact profitability and balance sheets
is crucial to making good decisions.

Not having that background is like trying to win a game without knowing the
rules.

~~~
tlb
Otellini has done a fine job of selling Intel's existing products, but they
haven't won in any new categories in his tenure. Intel may have missed the
boat on tablets and phones by not developing anything competitive with ARM-
based SoCs, which may replace 90% of desktops in the next 10 years. It's too
early to say, and there may be something big around the corner. But if Intel
stays the course and doesn't expand beyond the shrinking desktop market,
Otellini will exemplify the problem the article cites with salesguy CEOs :
failure to chart a winning course through the next technological disruption.

~~~
wtvanhest
Intel hasn't missed the boat on tablets or phones, they will be there shortly.

It takes years to design and tool a fab to build a new chip. Intel started the
R&D process years ago to maximize battery life. But, soon they will be in lots
of phones and tablets.

The part of Intel/SoC/iPad/Tablet/Phone world that people don't understand is
that there is almost no profit in making low end phone chips. At $35-$45 gross
per chip, they only make a few dollars in profit.

A high end i7 processor probably achieves profitability in the $700+ per chip
sold range.

That means they need to sell roughly (round numbers) $700/$5 = 140 smart phone
chips to make the profitability from one high end computer chip.

No one is going to try to compete with AMD/Intel on the high end since there
just isn't room for a competitor and the R&D risk is too high.

For Intel, they need to get in phones and tablets for the extra profit because
they can, but there isn't that much there.

Whether Otellini has done the right thing or not is yet to be seen, but I
would bet that Intel will start getting design wins in the next few years and
will eventually become the dominate phone processor seller.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
You have just stated the Innovator's Dilema, and nothing Intel is doing
appears to be any different than anybody else who has been displaced has done.
Waiting for the profits to get "large enough" simply gives the entrant time to
solidify their base.

Intel isn't going away, but it's going to have some rough times.

