Morettini on Management

General Management and Marketing Advice for Software and Tech Companies

Tag: Corporate Culture

What Does It Takes to Build a Great Software Company?

Software-based businesses come in many different sizes and shapes: SaaS or cloud-based, mobile, open-sourced, consumer, SMB and Enterprise, etc, etc. Even many successful “hardware” companies could really be viewed as software companies, as they are in fact driven primarily on novel software or firmware under the hood. With the diversity of form factors, it’s very hard to generalize what makes a great software company.

But I believe that there are some common factors among the great ones. It’s much easier of course, to take a look at successful companies and work backwards in a postmortem fashion. The problem with this approach is that you tend to see a lot of “revisionist history” utilized when folks tell the story of what made a company successful.

Institutional technology investors have there own pretty well documented list; in general it goes something like this:

  1. Strong Management Team with relevant experience in the space
  2. Distinct competitive advantage, usually via breakthrough, defensible technology
  3. Product/Service that addresses a serious  pain point felt by the target customer
  4. Large market opportunity

You’ll see various flavors of the above list and ordered in a variety of ways, but I think this is a pretty good representation of what VCs and other investors say they look for before they’ll write a big check.  When discussing what makes great companies, there’s no doubt in my mind that the list above is valid and important. But I think it’s  also incomplete. Here’s a few criteria of my own that I would add:

Management team chemistry

I’ve seen a whole bunch of management teams that looked like a great group on paper from a skills/experience viewpoint. But in practice they couldn’t work together for a variety of reasons: excessive competitiveness, selfishness, incompatible personalities and different communication styles are a few common reasons. As an example, I often see hard-driving CEOs with Type-A personalities who hire exclusively in his/her own image. The resulting management team often resembles a pack of hungry dogs fighting over a single piece of meat, with everyone fighting to be in the lead. Putting together a management team with good chemistry and mutual respect is more art than science and requires a leader with refined sensibilities in the “softer” aspects of management practice.

Lack of management arrogance and openness to learning

Management arrogance big problem that you find in people that perceive themselves as very successful. Sometimes they start to believe their own headlines and think they have all the answers. The problem is that when leading a software company the certain answers of yesterday can be the disastrous strategies of tomorrow, as software markets change so rapidly. I find that most leaders who are able to take their companies to greatness are not so full of themselves that they won’t listen to other internal and external voices. This is an attribute that enables management to navigate the treacherous road up the software industry food chain and raises the odds of taking a software business all the way to the top. Of course there are some famous leaders of large software companies that don’t fit this description–but I believe they are exceptions to the rule.

Realistic self-evaluation at every stage of development

To maximize the potential of a company to reach greatness, it’s important that once you’ve had some success you don’t get become over-enamored with it or underestimate what more is possible. At every stage of a company’s development the financial resources, personnel resources and realities of your market dictate what’s “possible” going forward. It’s sometime very hard to self evaluate where you’re really at as a company; some people are natural optimists and others pessimists. I’ve always felt that a little bit of marketplace paranoia is healthy in a management team. But the closer you can get to “reality” in your evaluation of what’s really possible, the more likely you will be to optimize that next step and keep moving forward on that long path to greatness.

Positive overall company culture

I believe that this may be the most important factor of all when it comes to a path to true greatness. There’s an old sports saying that “it’s not about the X’s and O’s, it’s about the Jimmy’s and Joes”. For those of you who aren’t sports fans, it’s just a funny way of saying that coaching (management) can only do so much; it’s the players (company staff) you recruit that really make it happen. In my opinion, this is very, very true and means that getting the best people possible really makes the difference in how successful a company will ultimately be. What is the biggest factor that allows you to recruit great people? In the long run, it’s a positive company culture that the current employees really feel good about which allows you to recruit great new people.

Those are my thoughts on what it takes to have a GREAT–not just good–software company. What would you remove or add to the list?  Leave a comment below with your own criteria for software industry greatness.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

5 Factors to Evaluate Whether You Have a Winning Corporate Culture – Video

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Starting Software Product Businesses Within Service Companies

The focus of my consulting practice is on commercial software product businesses, whether traditionally licensed, mobile, open source, SaaS–or some combination of all. While many software product businesses are originally organized with that purpose in mind, a remarkably large number of others started in another business. Let’s take a look at a few service-oriented scenarios which tend to grow into or spin off software product businesses:

Software (consulting) services

It’s very common for a product to be developed out of a software services company, which can mean a range of services such as consulting or outsourcing. These companies are being asked to design/create full applications, either for internal use by end user customers or as actual commercial software products. As a result, these service companies are in good position to recognize software product opportunities; sometimes these products are created by a funded service contract (if the service company is savvy enough to retain code rights!).

Government contracting

This is a very similar situation to the Software Services example above, with a couple of important differences. Government contractors are often not pure software development organizations; they may create hardware or provide other services as their government customers dictate. So they may not have a culture which emphasizes software development. Even more importantly, it can be tricky to retain rights to code developed with government funding–contracting expertise and an upfront emphasis on rights retention are critical in these circumstances.

Hardware/Systems

Another common scenario is software developed within a hardware or systems-oriented company. While not strictly fitting into the service category, I’ve included this example because it’s another common way software product companies are started that doesn’t fit the traditional methodology. The fact is that even in hardware companies these days, most of the innovation and IP is software-based. So it’s not at all unusual to see software developed as part of a systems approach that is later seen as having a market as a standalone application, apart from the hardware. Many successful software companies have started as spin-offs from hardware or systems-oriented companies.

VARs

Here’s another slightly different flavor of the Software Consulting Services example we began with. VARs are solutions providers for end user customers and are frequently asked to extend existing applications which are lacking in some way, integrate these solutions with other applications, or even write a standalone custom application. They are therefore well-positioned to get an early view of (and sometimes a customer-funded head-start developing) products needed to satisfy unfilled end users needs.

End user

End users often have in-house development capabilities and develop their own applications. In this case, the “service” organization is the internal IT department. These applications are often developed because of a “hole” in the existing commercial product offerings available in the marketplace. Forward thinking organizations may further develop and then spin-off these internal applications into commercial products.

So that’s a look at how organizations which aren’t-software product-oriented end up with a software product business. It can be a really great way for a software business to start–but there are many things that can prevent the successful transition into a going concern software product business. Here’s a list of a few:

Issues Which Can Prevent Success:

Culture

This is a frequent culprit in the failure of product businesses which are developed in the various service environments as discussed above. Depending upon the parent’s business, a mismatch in culture can come from a lack of understanding of either the software or product aspects of the resulting new business. For example, the management team of and “end-user” company that has developed a product may not be sufficiently software-savvy to make the right decisions to put the new business on a solid footing. A business executive in a software services company may not understand what it takes to develop a product to commercial product standards, or successfully market it. One of the biggest mismatches in culture often occurs within a government contractor. The “common business sense” required to be successful in the contracting business is shockingly different than that of a commercial software product business. The cultures are nearly polar opposites–It’s like English vs. French.

Capitalization

Often the cultural differences listed above or low overall capitalization of the parent company leads to the most common problem of these software product spin-offs: lack of proper initial capitalization. One of the attractive aspects of the software business is that it requires much less investment capital that a manufactured goods business–but it’s still a product business. Product businesses require more capital than service businesses. So even if you’ve created a great mousetrap, if you don’t have the money required to continue to develop it as well as market it–at least until you’re cash-flow positive–failure is quite likely.

Not productized

Maybe the most common problem of all is the lack of “productization” of the software application prior to launch as a commercial product. The level of usability, functionality and reliability required in the commercial product marketplace far exceeds the standards of the custom software application market. When you are supporting a single company directly with a custom app, you can afford a level of support which can overcome minor deficiencies in the areas listed. Once rolled out to a mass market of users in the software product marketplace, these deficiencies can kill a promising new product very quickly.

Me-too Products

One of the areas of expertise lacking in a service-oriented company (almost by definition) is Product Marketing/Management/Planning. The lack of this functional expertise can lead to a number of mistakes. One of the elementary mistakes that I see surprisingly often is not ensuring that you are making a novel “contribution to the market”. A software product startup with the 19th product to enter an existing market, with no discernable competitive advantage, is a great way to lose money.

Lack of software product industry experience

If you add up the potential mistakes listed above, most of them can be mitigated by the addition of software-product company operating experience. Sadly, in many instances the parent service company senior management is too proud or simply ignorant and unable to acknowledge this weakness. This potential weakness can be alleviated by hiring an experienced operating executive, or retaining a software product industry management consultant such as PJM Consulting.

The bottom line to all of this is that there are alternatives to the more conventional approaches of creating a traditional investor-funded or founder-bootstrapped software product company. Whether created intentionally from the beginning or a “happy accident”, companies started this way can provide an advantage of significantly reduced capital-requirement-to-profitability compared to traditional startup methods. But there are potholes and roadblocks that must be avoided to prevent crib death of embryonic software startups born this way.

So that’s some of the lessons I’ve learned with regards to creating product businesses from service companies. Is this something you’ve done or witnessed others attempt?–what were your results? Pitch in with your two cents — post a comment to expand the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Does Your Company Have a Winning Culture?

I’ve been reading Bill and Dave (subtitled: How Hewlett and Packard built the World’s Greatest Company) by Michael Malone. He’s a great writer, and it’s an important business story; I heartily recommend it.

Being an ex-HPer, I have tremendous respect, bordering on reverence for the “HP Way”, which was the basis for the culture at Hewlett Packard for so many years. With the benefit of hindsight, it wasn’t perfect and there were definitely things I’d change. But you can’t argue with the results. Bill and Dave essentially founded Silicon Valley, and built an unbelievably successful company that grew like clockwork for nearly four decades. The HP Way is long gone and the company is nearly unrecognizable from the one I worked in. But to this day I don’t believe they’ve ever had a full year of negative profit results.

The term “Corporate Culture” has been defined many different ways by a lot of people, some of them so complex as to be unreadable. Here’s a definition that’s probably as good as most:

“The specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.”

Maybe you have a better definition, but this one’s probably adequate for our discussion here.

Anyway, Malone’s book got me to thinking about corporate cultures at tech companies and their effect on a company’s performance. It’s something that I think is really undervalued in too many of today’s corporations. It’s often dismissed as a squishy, “soft” issue that’s unimportant to analytical senior managers.

Regardless of my HP bias, there have been a lot of very successful companies that have been built with very different cultures relative to HP’s in its heyday. One notable contrast would be IBM, a peer and competitor which as an east coast-based company had a much more traditional, hierarchical, button-down culture. But the IBM culture was revered as well, and the company was also wildly successful for a long period of time. As the saying goes, there’s more than one way to skin a cat (a very unfortunate idiom–who thought that one up?).

Cultures have been categorized many different ways including but not limited to “Work Hard, Play Hard Culture”, “Tough-Guy, Macho Culture”, “Process Culture”, “Bet-The-Company Culture”, and many more. In my mind, none of that matters much. What matters, in my opinion is does the culture drive positive results.

So you might surmise that the easiest way to define a great corporate culture is to look at financial results. That’s fine in the long run; with the benefit of hindsight, there probably is no better way to identify a great corporate culture than the decades of financial success such as HP and IBM enjoyed. But in the short run, financial results can be deceiving. It’s entirely possible to have a great short run of success even with a poisonous company culture.

So what’s the best way to measure whether you’ve built a great culture? The details vary at various successful software and hardware companies, but what are the common ingredients of a culture that sets the stage for long-term success? Here’s my shot at a list of the key attributes of winning corporate cultures:

Employees want to stay

For me, this may be the best gross indicator of a winning corporate culture. I know, you might say “That could means it’s a country club” with excellent compensation and low demands. But how often do you actually see that in a high performing company? Very seldom in my experience. In reality there is a great propensity for employees to take the view that “the grass is always greener”, and long to go somewhere else.

The best people rise to the top

This is another really key indicator of a company culture “clicking on all cylinders”. Particularly in larger organizations, political skills often are the dominant talent required to rise to the top of the org chart. There’s nothing wrong with this–it’s a skill set that’s very important to successfully influencing large, complex organizations and moving them in the right direction. The ability to connect with people and bring them to your position cannot be understated as a needed attribute of a corporate leader. But it’s important that these political skills are also paired with strong business savvy. The best leaders not only have the ability to “win the internal meeting”, but also the analytical and decision-making skills to drive the company to win in the marketplace. Sadly, all too often I’ve seen that those rising to the top are not exceptional in both these categories. A great corporate culture should facilitate the identification, retention and promotion of such well-rounded leaders.

Employees speak well of the company to outsiders

Everyone loves to bitch about their job and idiosyncrasies of where they work. But I find that in companies with the very best cultures, the word gets out about how great a place is to work, because great places to work are frankly, very rare. This means that you’ve created such a great environment that your employees brag about it to their friends and external colleagues, overcoming that very strong human propensity to view their jobs in a negative light.

Opinions flow freely without fear of retribution

This one probably isn’t a hard and fast rule. I’ve seen traditional hierarchical organizations that were very successful. In those instances, you tend to see opinions flow down from the top much more often than you see them flowing openly from below. But I believe in most successful “modern” corporation cultures, this is a pretty typical attribute.

Don’t have to overpay to attract talent

You might think of this one downstream result of positive vibe from the previous four categories. If you’ve created a fair, stimulating, challenging and comfortable work environment, you don’t have to work very hard to restock it with new employees. In many cases you won’t even have to look for them–they will find you. In companies with the very best cultures, outsiders practically beat down the door to get hired. That means your pay packages won’t need to “set the market”, they’ll just need to be “in the market” to attract great talent.

So that’s my list–what’s yours? What’s your view on which company has the finest corporate culture? Post a comment to expand the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

Hiring and Retaining High Tech Employees

Among the many interesting things that I get to examine in my Consulting Practice, one of the most fascinating is the differing cultures that are created within Software and Technology companies. Much of a company’s culture flows from the attitudes of the founders of the company. But the culture really consists largely of the people who are employed by make up the company. A company’s culture is a living, changing concept that is controlled by these employees in aggregate—from the CEO all the way down to the “worker bees”. I believe that culture plays a huge role in the company’s success or failure in the long run. For this reason, as well as many other obvious ones, there is probably nothing more important to a high tech company’s long-term success, than hiring and retaining employees.

So what’s the best way to hire “the best” and motivate and retain them for the long haul? That’s the $64,000 question. There are many paths to success, and even many ways of accomplishing the same goal. I will present one path and lay out my “best practices” in hiring and retention.

Hire Slowly
This is a major part of my hiring philosophy, and one that I must credit my time at HP for teaching me. When I worked at HP our hiring process was very thorough and deliberate. Employees weren’t simply chosen by a manager filling out his or her staff. A major part of the interviewing process was “chemistry interviews” with potential peers and other managers. While a company thrives with a diversity of styles and opinions, it is also very important that a prospective employee be a “fit” in the culture. It’s good for the candidate as well; they should have a good idea of what they are getting into, should they join the organization.

Another aspect of “hire slowly” that I will credit to my HP experience is to limit your growth in headcount, to a fraction of your revenue growth. This isn’t a hard and fast rule. When you are a startup, there are no revenues—and there must be employees! But this practice, if used as a general rule, puts a governor on exuberant hiring, which often quickly needs to be undone—at great financial and emotional cost to the company. Many times hiring accelerates just at the peak of the revenue growth curve—right before a downturn. I’ve always been a proponent of expanding “program spending” first to support business expansion—hire permanently only when you are more certain that your financial resources and revenue levels will support it.

Fire Slowly
This is another basic tenet of mine. It’s by far the best to hire properly up front, so that you don’t have to fire. In all companies, however, there comes a time when this becomes necessary. It may be layoffs due to a business downturn, or someone who isn’t pulling her weight in their present role.

I believe strongly that if you’ve hired someone, you’ve received a commitment from them, and you owe them a commitment in return. Now that’s not guaranteed lifetime employment, mind you! But it is important to do your best to treat them fairly. If it’s a layoff, don’t pull the trigger until you’re sure it’s necessary, and then give them all of the outplacement assistance and severance benefits that you can afford. If it’s someone that is under-performing in their present position, first think how you can remedy the situation without firing. Will additional training or an inside mentor make a difference? Is there another role within the organization, where they may be better suited to contribute? It is imperative to consider all possibilities before using termination as a last resort.

There are exceptions to my “Fire Slowly” advice. Bad attitudes, disruptive personalities and general disloyalty have no place, and are poisonous to a culture. Address these cases quickly, and let them know where they stand—including the consequences without a quick change of behavior. If you don’t see sincere change in a short time period, do what must be done quickly, and move on.

Don’t treat employees like fixed assets—they’re not furniture
In my “Hire Slowly, Fire Slowly” advice above, some of you may have been thinking that I’m a bleeding heart. Trust me; my advice comes strictly from the perspective of optimizing a business. The things I recommend can be done entirely for self-serving reasons as a manager. If you feel good because you’ve done the right thing—that’s an added bonus.

In my experience, if you treat people with respect, consideration and loyalty, you are most often rewarded in kind. Organizations that treat their employees as their biggest asset, to be protected and nurtured, usually have a workforce that will run through the wall for them. What could be more important to the success of a business?

I’ve worked in organizations that treat all assets the same—like items on the balance sheet. Anything that is fully depreciated or is excess due to current business levels, was simply disposed of. It didn’t matter if that asset was branch office furniture, or Sally, the clerk in Accounting. It should be intuitively obvious—but what a great way NOT to build morale among your employees! If you treat people like furniture, you will get the initiative, loyalty and energy of a desk chair in return. Why would you expect anything different? Remember, there are survivors left behind, and they know what you did. They will have no reason to feel that their fate will ultimately be any different.

I find this to be the single-most stupid management practice, a relic from a bygone era, which unfortunately is still in widespread practice. It amazes me how often I see this in practice—I consider it an attribute of managers who have risen above their level of competence.

Match Temperament and Personality to the Job
In job advertising and position specifications, you will see much effort devoted to attracting people with experience and technical skills which match well with the requirements of a particular position. Much less thought is given to “softer” aspects, which often mean the difference between success and failure.

That sales rep you’ve just hired may have been great in a big, well-known organization, “farming” a major account. Does he have the drive and perseverance to be as successful, now that he will be “hunting” new accounts, for a company with little track record and an unknown brand?

The new technical support rep has five years of experience in software applications similar to yours—but does he have the temperament to deal with anxious and angry customers, 8 hours per day?

Look past the obvious and pay attention to the more mundane attributes which may differentiate between success and failure.

Treat everyone fairly—not necessarily the same
One of the areas I think managers often make a mistake, is to have a firm set of rules that apply to all equally, at all times. I believe that to optimize an organization’s performance, you must manage people as individuals. Different people respond in a dramatically different manner to the same stimuli. An employee with one type of personality may respond to an independent assignment with pride that you’ve showed such confidence in them. Their colleague, with a different personality, may treat the same assignment as a sign of neglect and lack of caring about them. Each of these people may be equally capable, but how you manage them will greatly affect their ultimate performance. This area is where managers really earn their money, in my opinion. Figure out how to get the most out of every single employee, while maintaining an overall environment that still appears equitable, and fair to everyone as a whole.

Tie compensation to the long term success of the company
I want all of my employees to think like owners. So give everyone stock options—that’s my strong advice. If that isn’t desirable or practical for some reason, figure out a reasonable proxy to try to get the same results. Utilize Profit sharing programs based not only on short term results, but long term as well. It’s important to get everyone to share your goal—which is building the long term value of the company. If your compensation looks like that of a King, and theirs looks like that of a serf—it won’t happen. Cut everyone in on a piece of the pie, and your slice will end up much bigger in the end.

Build teamwork with group goals & incentives
Just as it’s important to tie everyone to your long term goal for the company, it’s also important to tie people to each other. I’ve seen many cultures which are very collaborative, where everyone is pulling in the same direction. There are organizations which have the greatest chance of success—the whole ends up being bigger than the individual parts. But all too often, even in early stage tech companies, I see companies where the employees seem to be fighting each other in an attempt to get ahead. They are expending energy fighting over the biggest piece of a still small pie, rather than using that same energy to expand the pie for everyone. Cutting everyone in with stock options helps. But I also recommend that part of each employee’s incentive compensation be based upon their internal team reaching its objectives—not just the achievement of individual goals. I find this really helps create greater teamwork, and ultimately a higher value company.

Hold employees accountable—but with compassion
Finally, the sum of it all is that I don’t recommend a country club environment, where no one is responsible for their actions. On the contrary, I recommend that you do your best to attract high performers, give them the tools to do their jobs, and hold them accountable for their actions. But do it with respect, helping them in every way that you can. And above all, treat them with compassion.

That’s my take on hiring and retaining employees for high tech companies—what’s yours? Post a comment or drop me a note by email.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com

High Tech Management & Leadership

What makes a great manager or leader in a High Tech company? Is it great technical knowledge or skill? Or is it the ability to be affable and convince people to do what you want by the strength of likeability and personal relationships? Getting people to perform by fear or grudging respect that comes from being in a position of power? People might answer this question in almost as many ways as there are people to ask.

I’ve had many influences in my career that have shaped my attitude toward management and leadership. I started my career in old-line, traditional, top-down industrial companies in the Midwest. Not knowing any better at the time, I thought that taking orders and doing what you’re told was the normal course of business. Doesn’t lead to much initiative or critical thinking, but I guess there wasn’t much asked for or expected of an entry-level employee in old-line companies. Speak when spoken to—do what you’re told, was the leadership style of the day.

It wasn’t until I moved to the west coast and went to work in the high tech business for Hewlett Packard that a whole new world was opened up to me. You actually care what I think? You want me to take the lead on that issue—and actually make a decision that will very likely be approved—if you need to even be reviewed my decision at all? What a revelation that was—the idea of treating employees like valued adults, with spare brainpower that might actually contribute to the company’s success. The HP way opened up my mind to the power of enabling people, and pushing decisions down as far as practical in the organization—where the best knowledge about a particular situation often resides. To this day I’m in awe of the positive effects of a few basic principles of the HP way—respect for the individual, hire the best you can find in a methodical and comprehensive manner with cultural fit being a major factor, fire slowly, push decisions down in the organization, keep organizations small, and senior executives are “just people too”—no pedestals. People felt like they were working in a small company in which they were important owners because of these policies—and had incredibly loyalty and initiative as a result. Even though HP was already an $8B multinational corporation. Like any company, the HP culture and leadership wasn’t perfect, and some of the warts have likely contributed to the malaise the company has found itself in in recent years. But the simple policies above elevated HP to incredible success over some 60 years—it’s too bad this great company has strayed and lost its way a lately.

Another area that I believe is incredibly important in the management and leadership of software and high tech companies is work ethic. Our business moves too fast to sit still for very long. The top people in the company set the tone here. In my experience, if the top people aren’t obviously sweating to contribute, it is really apparent to the troops. When the CEO is taking home several hundred thousand dollars (or millions) and seems to be doing it by just enjoying the good life, it sends a very chilling message down the ladder—what is valued, what it takes to get ahead, and “get some for yourself” while you can. Not the best way to build a team-oriented, winning culture.

I was struck by a ride that I had from the airport in a taxi a while back. The cabbie was an immigrant from Eritrea in east central Africa. His country has been war-torn and plagued by military coups and corruption. He came to the US with little more than the clothes on his back, with a wife and two small children. Spoke no English. He originally worked in a car wash, one of the lowest jobs in the US food chain. Learned English and Spanish at the same time, because he had too. Now he owns his own Cab, and has 4 kids. Still works hard—he picked me up at 11PM and had been working since 7AM that morning. But he doesn’t complain at all. He is appreciative that he was able to come here, and loves this country. His two daughters just got accepted to UCLA. It’s a classic American tale similar to many of our families that immigrated to this country over time. And you know what? To me, that taxi driver is a real leader that many people heading up companies could learn from. I’m sure that his children look up to him, and are appreciative that his hard work has paved the way to a better life for them. I’m certain that they are very loyal and will do whatever they can to gain his approval and fulfill his expectations for them. He has set a tremendous example for the people he is responsible for—one of selflessness, a gritty work ethic and never-say-die attitude. A strong Tech company CEO or senior executive can set a great example with much the same attitudes and qualities.

So to sum it up, what makes great leadership in High Tech? I think it’s someone with great intellectual capacity, but also great empathy for people as well. It’s someone with his ego in check enough to hire good people and let them create—including the ability to push the envelope and fail without getting fired. Someone who sets an example of hard work, intellectual honesty and tireless work ethic. A manager who realizes the power of giving credit to subordinates, rather that taking it for him or herself. One who realizes the short term profits are very important, but that people should never be treated as a simple expense like an office chair—if you want to have long term profits as well. Great leadership builds great companies for the long term. It’s very rare. If you know of one, I’d love to hear about him or her. Let us know what you think are the most important attributes of strong leadership–post a comment below.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or the PJM Consulting Quarterly Newsletter. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com