Carly Fiorina recently went on record saying that the current people running for office couldn’t run a corporation like HP. Some might argue that this gives her something in common with them because she failed at that herself. However, the reality is that being a CEO isn’t about technical or business skills, if it were Carly would be the top CEO and Steve Jobs would not be employed as one rather than the other way around.

What is sad, in watching her comments, is she still doesn’t seem to grasp what it takes to be a CEO and her comment is a proof point that she would likely fail again if she were given another opportunity.

Let’s explore what it takes to be a CEO and why Steve Jobs (and those running for office) do have what it takes to be one.

Being a CEO

I was fortunate enough to have participated in two programs designed to train CEOs and spent a good deal of my own time, in addition to this, trying to understand what makes a successful one. I can say categorically it isn’t training. What makes a CEO different than any other manager is that they are more politician and team leader than they are individual contributor and traditional manager.

This is why, I think, so many CEOs like Carly fail. To get to the level to be considered as a CEO you generally have to be incredibly good at self promotion and on accomplishing tasks. But, as CEO, you need to be best at promoting your people, your company, and the collective ideas of the organization. In addition, while managing to metrics remains important, you can often set those metrics as CEO much like you did at lower levels but the folks that count, the investors and financial analysts, may disagree and their vote you’ll quickly learn is stronger than your own.

This brings in the political part because you have to be able to constantly move a constituency to your way of thinking or you will fail. You can’t do that alone, you need your staff behind you much like a politician has volunteer supporters, and the infighting that often leads to a CEO posting also often creates an environment where that support doesn’t materialize.

Steve Jobs

If you look at Steve Jobs he had no formal training. He is a college dropout, he got fired from Apple by the CEO he hired, his NeXT effort failed, Pixar only succeeded because he found someone else to run it. By any management measure he should be a disaster as a CEO, but he isn’t. This is because his strengths is being able to sell an idea and drive people to follow his lead (granted his methods are likely harsher than most need) has directly lead to success.

His skills are largely manipulation, influence, and fear which are all part of a good politician’s skill set. He isn’t an engineer, he clearly isn’t a financial or legal expert, and he isn’t really a designer though he has a good eye. He does appear to have a good talent for picking good people and his methods of motivating them, while harsh, do seem to provide strong results.


Mark Hurd

HP’s current CEO actually does have a broad operational background and does get a lot of what Steve Jobs does not. But, what he is known for, is for getting good people, finding ways to motivate them to get the job done, and making sure they do it. He doesn’t put himself on stage very often and even then for short periods of time, even though he appears to be very good at it.

He lets his people take the credit for what is going on at HP and his people give him back that credit in spades. He, like any good candidate, has a number of internal supporters who will go to bat for him and his word, inside HP, is law. Where he and Jobs differ is in how they motivate their people, both use fear, but Hurd is more subtle about it but while he isn’t soft when it comes to handing out punishment he is softer than Jobs and he is more likely to use incentives than Jobs is.

But, in the end, for both men it is their skill at manipulating others that makes them successful even though their methods differ markedly.

Politicians as CEOs

At IBM my division was actually run, for awhile, by a California politician. It was a unique experience and he was hired specifically to take our division public. He failed but not because of any faults he had, the direction from corporate which had been to split the company up changed and with that any plan to split the storage division out.

The guy wasn’t a great politician and he won’t be remembered as a great CEO (I can’t even remember his name at the moment) but I watched him perform and he was better than a lot of folks I’d studied at the time. He had no business knowledge but seemed to get the importance of building loyalty around him, making people hit metrics, and in gaining the support of the people that he needed for the unit to be successful.

It was a turning point for me because it was around this time I realized that a CEO’s job in a large company wasn’t in my own future because I didn’t enjoy the political side of the job and that appeared to be most of it.

Wrapping Up

It shouldn’t be surprising that many people who first get the job of CEO really don’t understand what it takes to do the job. I’m sure the job of US President is much the same. I doubt anyone is truly qualified before getting the job and we seem to rarely elect the most qualified on paper. And that is because the skills needed to get and to hold the job aren’t on paper they are the skills needed to not only come up with good ideas (and this can be outsourced to the cabinet) but to sell these ideas and drive a rebellious congress to execute.

This same skill set, in a large complex corporation, is also critical and it is why I disagree with Fiorina and say any of the candidates likely could be a great CEO. To get re-elected or to have a very positive approval rating both indicate that they actually do have the truly critical skills the job needs. Fiorina, in making the comment, didn’t show the support critical to her role as spokesperson, politician, or CEO, and this showcases that while she could be great in all these rolls, she has yet to learn the skills that would ensure her success in any of them.