Walter Isaacson has written biographies of genuises and leaders ranging from Albert Einstein to Benjamin Franklin, Henry Kissinger and
The Innovators: How a group of inventors, hackers, geniuses and geeks created the digital revolution is billed as the story of the people who created the computer and the internet.
Telling that story, however, involves shining a light on that age-old conundrum of whether individual brilliance or collective excellence is what is really needed for quality leadership.
"Throughout history, the best leadership has come from teams that that combined people who had complementary talents," writes Isaacson. "That was the case with the founding of the United States. The leaders included an icon of rectitude, George Washington; brilliant thinkers such as Jefferson and Madison; men of vision and passion, including Samuel and John Adams; and a sage conciliator, Benjamin Franklin."
Likewise, he argues the founders of the Arpanet, the precursor to the internet, included visionaries (Joseph Licklider), crisp decision-making engineers (Larry Roberts), politically adroit people-handlers (Bob Taylor), and collaborative oarsmen (Steve Crocker and Vint Cerf).
However, history also shows that a key to fielding a great team was pairing visionaries, who can generate ideas, with operating managers, who can execute them.
"Visions without execution are hallucinations," writes Isaacson. "Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore were both visionaries, which is why it was important that their first hire at Intel was Andy Grove, who knew how to impose crisp management procedures, force people to focus, and get things done. Visionaries who lack such teams around them often go down in history as merely footnotes."
To continue the technology link, Isaacson refers to the lingering historical debate over who most deserves to be dubbed the inventor of the electronic digital computer: John Atanasoff, a professor who worked almost alone at Iowa State, or a team led by John Mauchly and Presper Eckert at the University of Pennsylvania.
Isaacson plumps for the latter group partly because, with the help of dozens of engineers, mechanics and women programmers, it was able to get its Eniac machine up, running and solving problems.
"Atanasoff’s machine, by contrast,” continues Isaacson, “ended up not fully working, partly because there was no one to help him figure out how to make his punch card burner operate. It ended up being consigned to a basement, then discarded when no one could remember exactly what it was.”
Of course, the internet is one of the greatest collaborative tools in history, making team-working possible not only within physical teams but also among crowds of people who don’t know one another.
"The Internet facilitated not only collaboration within teams but also among crowds of people who didn’t know each other.
This has led to innovative systems, such as Google page ranks, Wikipedia entries, the Firefox browser and Linux software.
Collaborative Leadership
However, Isaacson also sees parallels in leadership here, saying that the most successful endeavours in the digital age were those run by leaders who fostered collaboration while also providing a clear vision.
"Too often these are seen as conflicting traits: a leader is either very inclusive or a passionate visionary,” he writes. "But the best leaders could be both. Robert Noyce was a good example. He and Gordon Moore drove Intel forward based on a sharp vision of where semiconductor technology was heading, and they both were collegial and non-authoritarian to a fault. Even Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, with all of their prickly intensity, knew how to build strong teams around them and inspire loyalty.Brilliant individuals who could not collaborate tended to fail. William Shockley’s transistor company disintegrated. Similarly, collaborative groups that lacked passionate and willful visionaries also failed. Bell Labs, after inventing the transistor, went adrift. So did Apple after Steve Jobs was ousted in 1985.”
Product People Versus Salesmen
Part of the reason that collaboration is particularly important within leadership in technology companies, argues Isaacson, is that there is a sharp divide between executives who can be described as “product people” and those whose skill lies in sales and marketing.
"Most of the successful innovators and entrepreneurs in this book had one thing in common,” he says. “They were product people. They cared about, and deeply understood, the engineering and design. They were not primarily marketers or salesmen or financial types; when such folks took over companies, it was often to the detriment of sustained innovation.”
Jobs himself apparently agreed. “When the sales guys run the company, the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off,” he told Isaacson. “It happened at Apple when {John}Sculley came in, which was my fault, and it happened when {Steve} Ballmer took over at Microsoft.”
Larry Page, co-founder of Google, told Isaacson something similar. “The best leaders are those with the deepest understanding of the engineering and product design,” he said.
Teams Versus Individuals
Taking the argument outside technology companies, in British business the debate involves setting the leadership of Tesco under Sir Terry Leahy against that of driving personal leaders such as Amstrad’s Alan, (now Lord) Sugar.
Where Virgin's Sir Richard Branson, arguably Britain’s best-known businessman, fits in is an altogether different discussion.
Are teams better at leading than individuals? And do technology companies falter once they appoint leaders who are salesmen rather than engineers? Do let me know what you think?
