Managing Leaders, Or Why Pat Gelsinger Is Awesome

In case you missed it, Intel CEO Bob Swan is stepping down from his role effective February 15 and will be replaced by current VMware CEO Pat Gelsinger. Gelsinger was the former CTO at Intel for a number of years before leaving to run EMC and VMware. His return is a bright spot in an otherwise dismal past few months for the chip giant.

Why is Gelsinger’s return such a cause for celebration? The analysts that have been interviewed say that Intel has been in need of a technical leader for a while now. Swan came from the office of the CFO to run Intel on an interim basis after the resignation of Brian Krzanich. The past year has been a rough one for Intel, with delays in their new smaller chip manufacturing process and competition heating up from long-time rival AMD but also from new threats like ARM being potentially sold to NVIDIA. It’s a challenging course for any company captain to sail. However, I think one key thing makes is nigh impossible for Swan.

Management Mentality

Swan is a manager. That’s not meant as a slight inasmuch as an accurate label. Managers are people that have things and look after them. Swan came from the financial side of the house where you have piles of resources and you do your best to account for them and justify their use. It’s Management 101. Managers make good CEOs for a variety of companies. They make sure that the moves are small and logical and will pay off in the future for the investors and eventually the workers as well. They are stewards first and foremost. When their background comes from something with inherent risk they are especially stewardly.

You know who else was a manager? John Sculley, the man who replaced Steve Jobs at Apple back in 1983. Sculley was seen as a moderating force to Jobs’ driving vision and sometimes reckless decision making skills. Sculley piloted the ship into calm waters at first but was ultimately sent packing because his decisions were starting to make less and less sense, such as exploring options to split Apple into separate companies and taking on IBM head-to-head on their turf.

Sculley was ousted and Jobs returned to Apple in 1993. It wasn’t easy at first but eventually the style of Jobs started producing results. Things like the iPod, iMac, and eventually the iPhone came from his vision. He’s a leader in that regard. Leaders are the ones that jump out and take risks to make big results. Leaders are people like John Kennedy that give a vision of going to the moon in a decade without the faintest idea how that might happen. Leadership is what drives companies.

Leaders, however, are a liability without managers. Leaders say “let’s go to the moon!” Managers sit down and figure out how to make that happen without breaking the budgets or losing too many people along the way. Managers are the grounded voices that guide leaders. Without someone telling a leader of the challenges to overcome they won’t see the roadblocks until the drive right into them.

Leaders without brakes on their vision have no reality to shape it. Every iMac has an Apple Lisa. Every iPod has the iPod Hi-Fi. Even the iPhone wasn’t the iPhone until the App Store came around against the original vision of Apple’s driving force. To put it another way, George Lucas is a visionary leader in filmmaking. However, when he was turned loose without management of his process we ended up with the messy prequel trilogy. Why was Empire Strikes Back such a good film? Because it had people like Lawrence Kasdan involved managing the process of Lucas creating art. They helped focus the drive of a leader and make the result something great.

Tech Leadership

Let’s bring this discussion back to Intel and Pat Gelsinger. I know he is the best person to lead Intel right now. I know that because Gelsinger is very much a tech leader. He has visions for how things need to be and he can see how to get there. He knows that reducing costs and reaving product lines at Intel isn’t going to make them a better company down the road no matter what the activist investors have to say on the matter. They may have wanted regime change when they petitioned the board back in December, but they may find the new king a bit harder to deal with.

Gelsinger is also a manager. Going from CTO to being COO at EMC and eventually CEO at VMware has tempered his technical chops. You can’t hope to run a company on crazy ideas and risky bets. Steve Jobs had people like Tim Cook in the background keeping him as grounded in reality as possible. Gelsinger picked up these skills in helming VMware and I think that’s going to pay off for him at Intel. Rather than running out to buy another company to augment capabilities that will never see the light of day, someone like him can see the direction that Intel needs to go and make it happen in a collected manner. No more FPGA acquisitions that never bear fruit. No more embarrassing sales of the mobile chip division because no one could capitalize on it.

Pat Gelsinger is the best kind of technical manager. I saw it in the one conversation I was involved in with him during an event. He stepped in to a talk between myself and a couple of analysts. He listened to them and to me and when he was asked for his opinion, he stopped for a moment to think. He asked a question to clarify and then gave his answer. That’s a tempered leader approach to things. He listened. He thought. He clarified. And then he made a decision. That means there is steel behind the fire. That means the driving factors of the decision-making process aren’t just “cool stuff” or “save as much money as we can”. What will happen is the fusion of the two that the company needs to stay relevant in a world that seems bent on passing it by.


Tom’s Take

I’ve worked for managers and I’ve worked for leaders. I don’t have a preference for one or the other. I’ve seen leaders sell half their assets to save their company. I’ve also seen them buy ridiculous stuff in an effort to build something that no one would buy. I’ve seen managers keep things calm in the middle of a chaotic mess. I’ve also seen them so wracked with indecision that the opportunities they needed to capitalize on sailed off into the sunset. If you want to be the best person to run a company as the CEO, whether it’s a hundred people or a hundred thousand, you should look to someone like Pat Gelsinger. He’s the best combination of a manager and leader that I’ve seen in a long time. In five years we will be talking about how he was the one to bring Intel back to the top of the mountain, both through his leadership and his management skills.

Managing Automation – Fighting Fear of Job Justification

Dear Employees

 

We have decided to implement automation in our environment because robots and programs are way better than people. We will need you to justify your job in the next week or we will fire you and make you work in a really crappy job that doesn’t involve computers while we light cigars with dollar bills.

 

Sincerely, Management

The above letter is the interpretation of the professional staff of your organization when you send out the following email:

We are going to implement some automation concepts next week. What are some things you wish you could automate in your job?

Interpretations differ as to the intent of automation. Management likes the idea of their engineering staff being fully tasked and working on valuable projects. They want to know their people are doing something productive. And the people that aren’t doing productive stuff should either be finding something to do or finding a new job.

Professional staff likes being fully tasked and productive too. They want to be involved in jobs and tasks that do something cool or justify their existence to management. If their job doesn’t do that they get worried they won’t have it any longer.

So, where is the disconnect?

You Do Exist (Sort of)

The problem with these interpretations comes down to the job itself. Humans can get very good at repetitive, easy jobs. Assembly line works, quality testers, and even systems engineers are perfect examples of this. People love to do something over and over again that they are good at. They can be amazing when it comes to programming VLANs or typing out tweets for social media. And those are some pretty easy jobs!

Consistency is king when it comes to easy job tasks. When I can do it so well that I don’t have to think about things any more I’ve won. When it comes out the same way every time no matter how inattentive I am it’s even better. And if it’s a task that I can do at the same time or place every day or every week then I’m in heaven. Easy jobs that do themselves on a regular schedule are the key to being employed forever.

Automatic For The Programs

Where does that sound more familiar in today’s world? Why, automation of course! Automation is designed to make easy, repeatable jobs execute on a schedule or with a specific trigger. When that task can be done by a program that is always at work and never calls in sick or goes on vacation you can see the allure of it to management. You can also see the fear in the eyes of the professional that just found the perfect role full of easy jobs that can be scheduled on their calendar.

Hence the above interpretation of the automation email sample. People fear change. They fear automation taking away their jobs. Yet, the jobs that are perfect for automation are the kinds of things that shouldn’t be jobs in the first place. Professionals in a given discipline are much, much smarter than just doing something repetitively over and over again like VLAN modifications or IP addressing of interfaces. More importantly, automation provides consistency. Automation can be programmed to pull from the correct database or provide the correct configuration every time without worry of a transcription mistake or data entry in the wrong field.

People want these kinds of jobs because they afford two important things: justification of their existence and free time at work. The former ensures they get to have a paycheck. The latter gives them the chance to find some kind of joy in their job. Sure, you have some kind of repetitive task that you need to do every day like run a report or punch holes in a sheet of metal. But when you’re not doing that task you have the freedom to do fun stuff like learn about other parts of your job or just relax.

When you take away the job with automation, you take away the cover for the relaxation part. Now, you’ve upset the balance and forced people to find new things to do. And that means learning. Figuring out how to make tasks easy and repetitive again. And that’s not always possible. Hence the fear of automation and change.

Building A Better Path To Automation

How do we fix this mess? How can we motivate people to embrace automation? Well, it’s pretty simple:

  1. Help Your Team See The Need – If your teams think think they’re going to lose their jobs because of automation, they’re not going to embrace it. You need to show them that not only are they not going to lose their jobs but how automation will make their jobs easier and better. Remember to frame your arguments along the lines of removing mistakes and not needing to worry about justifying your existence in a role. That should encourage everyone to look for new challenges to overcome.
  2. Show the Value – This goes with the first part somewhat, but more than showing the need for automation with mistake reduction or schedule easing, you also need to show value. If a person has never made a mistake or has built their schedule around repetitive tasks they are going to hate automation. Show them what they can do now that their roles don’t have to focus on the old stuff they did. Help them look at where they can provide additional value. Even if it starts off by monitoring the automation platform to make sure it’s executing correctly. Maybe the value they can provide is finding new things to automate!
  3. Embrace the Future – Automation allows people to learn how to do new things. They can focus on new skills or roles that help support the business in a better way. More automation means more complexity to understand but also a chance for people to shine in new roles. The right people will see a challenge as something to be overcome. Help them set new goals. Help them get where they want to be. You’ll be surprised how quickly they will get there with the right leadership.

Tom’s Take

Automation isn’t going to steal jobs. It will force people to examine their tasks and decide how important they really are. The people that were covering their basic roles and trying to skate by are going to leave no matter what. Even if your automation push fails these marginal people are going to leave for greener pastures thanks to the examination of what they’re actually doing. Don’t let the pushback discourage you in the short term. Automation isn’t the goal. Automation is the tool to get you to the true goal of a smoother, more responsive team that accomplishes more and can reacher higher goals.