In a post I wrote for Friday’s Atlantic.com (“America’s healthy infatuation with entrepreneurs”), I discussed the appeal of the entrepreneur ideal, and contrasted the persona of the representative entrepreneur (exuberant, brash, emotional, excitable) with that of the typical Fortune 500 CEO (measured, dispassionate, methodical), a difference that presumably reflects the very different needs of the two types of businesses (startup vs multinational).
In response, several readers raised a point that’s been on my mind as well, highlighting examples of well-known CEOs who seemed to run large companies while maintaining their youthful energy and unbridled enthusiasm – obviously Steve Jobs, but also leaders such as Virgin Group CEO Richard Branson. In this context, I particularly enjoyed this weekend’s NYT’s interview with Ruckus Wireless CEO Selina Lo, a leader who has clearly maintained her distinctive inviduality, albeit in the context of a relatively small (350 person) operation.
I suspect the reason we are so familiar with these leaders is precisely because their behavior is not representative of top CEOs. While it strikes me as profoundly inspiring that each of these executives has managed to run companies while maintaining their visceral passion, it’s also true that these leaders each founded the companies they run (or ran), or joined at a very early stage. The relevant question is whether someone like Branson or Jobs could ever rise through the ranks of a typical large corporation, or whether their distinctive personalities would have thwarted their ascension. The image of Jobs or Branson participating in a typical HR team building event or communications training activity is admittedly difficult to envision.
On the other hand, if the way to rise to the top is to suppress one’s intrinsic distinctiveness, the question is whether this is ever likely to re-emerge – if Branson or Jobs had been forced to toe the typical corporate line for a decade or more, and work his way up the ladder in the usual fashion, would either of them have been able, with equal facility, to re-access his distinctive qualities once he emerged as CEO at the end? I suspect the experience might have made each a more effective manager, but a less inspirational and effective leader.
The pharma industry seems clearly to have moved in the other direction – we’ve long ago decided that making medicines is far too important to be left to either the doctors or the scientists, and as a consequence, large companies are now run, for the most part, by seasoned business executives who seem a world removed from founder scientists. At first blush, this makes sense: running a multinational corporation is a distinctly non-trivial undertaking, and you can understand why it’s comforting to have this role in the hands of an experienced business expert. On the other hand, without the passion and drive of an entrepreneur, I suspect something vital gets lost.
The continued acquisition of small young companies by mature pharma behemoths is almost certainly the future of the industry; yet, one imagines how exciting it would be if a promising young company, led by its founders, could grow to the point of being an industry leader. Following the acquisition of Genentech by Roche, it’s difficult to think of a company that seems ready to step into this role.
Pity. A bit of passion and a dash of brashness could be just what our industry requires.