Running a megacorp is not about understanding technology, but about understanding organizations and business. You do need to understand enough of your business to understand strategy, see opportunities, and understand when you are being snowed by subordinates (almost always) and how to deal with it. Big companies with pots of money are magnets for the ambitious, the driven, aiming for the top and with the skills to climb.
It is really useful for the Board to have some ability to see when the C-suite is off - and the guts to tell them. Tough job, since most folks who reach the C-suite of a big company are not listening to when they are wrong, but some are flexible enough to take advice. Though, often those people are not the board. Jobs for example did have people he trusted in his team. They kept out of the way of his ego, letting him have the glory, but he listened. Gates was remarkable for hiring, and surviving, several layers of type-A overachievers. The first 20 years were wildly successful because he could hold it all together. I think he lost interest when it got really corporate.
Each one of the people mentioned here is unique. The companies at that size are rare, and replacing folks at the top is a gamble, finding the right fit.
Will Gelsinger be durable and reshape Intel for success, in whole or in parts? It will take time, and being a listed company in the USA with no dominant shareholder is not a recipe for patience. The board, along with its executive search advisors, thought Pat was a fit. The compensation package is peanuts compared to what he would be getting out of the Broadcom deal this week if he had stayed at VMware. Intel had to pay to take the gamble, no matter who they chose.
It is really useful for the Board to have some ability to see when the C-suite is off - and the guts to tell them. Tough job, since most folks who reach the C-suite of a big company are not listening to when they are wrong, but some are flexible enough to take advice. Though, often those people are not the board. Jobs for example did have people he trusted in his team. They kept out of the way of his ego, letting him have the glory, but he listened. Gates was remarkable for hiring, and surviving, several layers of type-A overachievers. The first 20 years were wildly successful because he could hold it all together. I think he lost interest when it got really corporate.
Each one of the people mentioned here is unique. The companies at that size are rare, and replacing folks at the top is a gamble, finding the right fit.
Will Gelsinger be durable and reshape Intel for success, in whole or in parts? It will take time, and being a listed company in the USA with no dominant shareholder is not a recipe for patience. The board, along with its executive search advisors, thought Pat was a fit. The compensation package is peanuts compared to what he would be getting out of the Broadcom deal this week if he had stayed at VMware. Intel had to pay to take the gamble, no matter who they chose.