Battle for the soul of Silicon Valley
Shaw is the latest non-technologist to ascend at Intel. Photo: Intel.
Who rules techland? Increasingly, it isn't the inmates.
In May, when Craig Barrett retired as chairman of Intel (INTC), the choice of his replacement marked a momentous occasion for the granddaddy of the semiconductor industry.
That Jane Shaw became nonexecutive chairman of Intel is a big deal, but not because she is Intel's first outsider to chair the board or because she is the first woman.
What makes her role noteworthy is that she is the first non-technologist in that seat. Yes, she has a science background, with a doctorate in physiology and a career in the pharmaceutical industry. But she's not a technologist in the Silicon Valley sense.
Considering that Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini, is the first non-technologist to run the company (see my 2005 profile of him) and that his most likely successor, Sean Maloney, isn't a silicon guy either, it's a remarkable turnabout.
Revenge of the anti-nerds
Now, this isn't a piece about Intel, though it could be. Shaw is perfectly well qualified to be Intel's chairman, having served on the board — loaded with academics, retired government officials and three corporate types, not one of whom has a commercial semiconductor background — for 16 years. (She shows up in Brent Schlender's 2004 take on how Andy Grove was trying to re-make Intel's board and himself.)
The point is that Intel's experience represents one of the quietest yet fiercest battles going on across the Valley: the technologists versus the business people.
Time after time I come across people in the Valley who want to talk about this, most of whom are technologists bemoaning their loss of power. Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) hasn't had a gearhead at the helm for years. Yahoo (YHOO) ditched its engineer/founder/CEO who missed key turns in the Internet industry. Google (GOOG), firmly run by engineers, struggles to retain its top business talent because they know they can't move up.
Most careful Apple (AAPL) and Oracle (ORCL) watchers dread the day when their tech-savvy CEOs no longer are around to work their innovative magic.
Growing up, or selling out?
The company that seems to be biggest exception is Cisco, (CSCO) where salesman-in-chief John Chambers has skillfully guided the company for years.
Cisco, however, isn't lauded for its innovation. It is known for superior execution, deft acquisitions and a clear understanding of market opportunities — not the sorts of things that makes the hearts of engineers go pitter-patter.
The charitable explanation for all this is that Silicon Valley is becoming mature. It has grown up into a real industry, not a frontier collection of maverick companies, and its leaders approach their tasks in an industrial fashion.
The less cheerful interpretation is that the glory days are gone, that Silicon Valley is little more than a bunch of careerists and, worse, venture capitalists.
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: Yes, Silicon Valley has become a destination for new MBAs who see the tech biz as a money-making opportunity rather than a passion to pursue. But the Valley will continue to produce interesting new companies – founded by whip-smart engineers and technologists.
If those founders want their companies to evolve into the next Intel, they're probably going to need a few of those spreadsheet jockies to help them get there.
Will journalists please stop this dichotomy of MBA vs engineers
Many MBA's in Silicon Valley (like me) are also engineers. GO to any b-school and check. Its the same story.
And an MBA is not a profession like Medicine and Law. You don't even have a professional group for MBA's.
Mature Industry = No Innovation = No Growth = No Marketing = Outsourcing = Downsizing = Automazation of Existing Processes = No More Easy Profits = Business Sold to China = No Future for You or Yours
Further proof of the evolution of these fields. Business can not survive long term without good business managers and the same can be said for innovative talent. Those that balance the two thrive, those that leverage one way or the other fail over time. Though this can be said for any industry or business though. Overall, good tree top view article though.
I just read that software development is one of the hottest jobs in the US – again. After 13 years in IT, all I can say is that I'm sick of hearing this BS. I would love to get out of it because there is no future in it – it all goes to India. What a sad joke! Anyone who wants to get into IT in America are FOOLS !!
Ever since the dotcom bubble, it has become obvious to many engineers that Silicon Valley is all about making money. Outsiders give it too much credit for innovation. Real innovations happened at institutions like Bell Labs. Silicon Valley is all about business execution and making money. The ones who made out like bandits during the dotcom, think they are geniuses and are running this place. Until they retire or until their influence wanes, do not expect major innovations from the Valley.
There's no reason to call these spreadsheet addicts "anti-nerds." They are in fact mostly over-achievers. A disturbing trend in America is that otherwise smart people have been going after the sure-shot quick buck (i.e. MBA route) rather than developing and pursuing passions or starting innovative companies…thus largely contributing to the overcrowded Titanic that is the U.S. of A. Bankers at the helm, lawyers sipping champagne, politicians enjoying the deck, MBA's in luxury rooms, Joe the plumbers cleaning their rooms, and those with passion trying to figure out ways to prevent it from sinking (or reflecting upon life before it sinks).
The new executives would be better described as extreme pragmatists who will have no part in even looking in the direction that a starving artist might take. They are slaves to Wall street expectations, and will slowly turn our great tech companies into nothing more than marketing shells. The key is for engineers to BAND TOGETHER and form new companies like Google. And please don't fall victim to vulture capitalists or organizations that are essentially run by corporations (e.g, the IEEE).
"Mature industry" = "one ripe for replacement by innovators". Cost-cutting management geniuses are rarely good at growing new business. There are any number of examples both historical and current.
My experience working for both types of companies is that companies with technologists at the top invent whizzie new things and companies with business people at the top make money.
Making money is less exciting and more about repeatable processes and "whole products."
Making whizzie new things is a hit-driven business. It is purely hit and miss. So, it's more exciting at many levels.
http://rbnolan.wordpress.com/