I do remember feeling a little disappointed when Paul Otellini was announced as CEO. Paul's an impressive guy, and a local boy, but he is an econ major/MBA, and I always find it a little depressing to learn that a venerable tech company will now be led by someone without a strong engineering or science background.
Actually, I think "first non-technical CEO" probably deserves a notch on a technology company's time line. It doesn't mean that the company won't succeed, but it is a sign that it has become a different type of company (this may be more a reflection of this change than a cause).
But unlike some other high profile flame-outs, it sounds like Otellini was a success at the helm.
The first non-tech CEO is usually a strong sign that a company has grown from a startup with a single product focus to a long-term viable business with a diversified product portfolio. (Think GE, AT&T, Boeing etc.)
For people in the HN community, this is mostly horrific because it represents everything they avoid. However, for almost everyone else out there that is working for the purpose of simply providing for their families, the stability and strength of a diversified company is typically a major positive.
The thing that is always missing from the HN discussions about how bad MBAs are for a company etc. is that at the extremes of business, business becomes highly technical and requires someone who is technically proficient at business.
Knowing how to create the next high end transistor technology which maintains Moore's law is amazing, but that person is highly unlikely to keep a company of Intel's size successful.
that person is highly unlikely to keep a company of Intel's size successful.
Perhaps so... particularly in the moment. To me, it's more a question of whether that CEO is a person who once would have known how to create the next high end transistor (or whatever technology innovation is central to the business) and is still able to have that conversation as an engineer/scientist.
For instance, I doubt Andy Grove, at the end of his tenure, would have been able to do that kind of tech work in the moment, but he had a PhD in engineering and had a very deep knowledge of the technology as well as the business. He did make some very typical-of-engineers mistakes when intel decided to raise its consumer profile. And I'm not trying to bring up a debate around Andy Grove's management style (though of course, people are free to comment what they like). But it's hard to say he didn't keep the company successful, even at a very large scale.
Otellini was a successful CEO, but (I actually don't know this for sure) did he ever have the ability to do the core tech work behind intel's product?
I suppose that in this era of high profile non-tech CEO flameouts (HP, Yahoo), Otellini may actually be a counter-example that a non-technical CEO can still be quite successful.
>For instance, I doubt Andy Grove, at the end of his tenure, would have been able to do that kind of tech work in the moment, but he had a PhD in engineering and had a very deep knowledge of the technology as well as the business. He did make some very typical-of-engineers mistakes when intel decided to raise its consumer profile.
Grove is a great example of a successful technical CEO. I would never say Otellini was a failure, but Intel flourished under Grove in a way that it didn't under Otellini.
Actually, I think "first non-technical CEO" probably deserves a notch on a technology company's time line. It doesn't mean that the company won't succeed, but it is a sign that it has become a different type of company (this may be more a reflection of this change than a cause).
But unlike some other high profile flame-outs, it sounds like Otellini was a success at the helm.