We all want to know the secrets to being a great CEO. So wouldn’t it be great if we actually were able to compare two CEOs in the exact same industry to see why one was better than the other?

I was really fortunate to work with two CEOs in the same industry, so I got to see the differences up close. One of the CEOs was a great leader, and the other CEO was not a great leader.

The two CEOs were very similar in many ways. They were of the same generation. They both grew up poor/lower middle class.

They both had sizable egos. And they both enjoyed some of level of success.

However, one of the CEOs, the late Jack Gifford, built his company (Maxim Integrated Products) to over $2B/year in revenue. The other CEO (we will call him “Bob”) wanted to build a $1B/year company, but his company was stuck for years with revenue of around $200M/year.

Eventually, activist investors forced Bob to sell his company. Bob had missed too many plans for too long, and Bob lost the support of his board of directors.

Why was Gifford so successful as a leader and Bob not so successful?

As I said, Gifford and Bob were similar in many ways. However, Gifford and Bob were different in some very important ways too.

It’s the differences between Gifford and Bob that explain why Gifford was so much more successful than Bob.

Jim Collins in his masterwork, “Good To Great” developed a framework for evaluating leaders.   I’ll use Collins’ framework to evaluate Jack and Bob.

Interestingly enough, Gifford and Bob were markedly different in each of category:

Difference #1: Getting the right people on the bus.

One of the great things I learned working at Maxim was the importance of having a great team. Every department of the company was full of A players.

Everything is so much easier when you work with A players. You almost take it for granted that things will get done.

I would say 80% of the employees at Maxim were A players. So it was a great shock when I started working with Bob and maybe 20% of the employees were A players.

Mediocrity becomes the norm when you are working with B and C players. You have to replace everyone when you are in an environment of B and C players.

So I ended up replacing all of my direct reports except for one. Then, I had the ability to move forward and turn the division I was running from unprofitable to profitable.

The rest of Bob’s company didn’t make sweeping changes. The company remained stuck in mediocrity.

Difference #2: Confront the brutal facts.

Gifford used to have an absolute paranoia about what was wrong at Maxim. It didn’t matter how well the business was doing, there was always a way to get better.

In fact, Maxim underwent some of its biggest improvements when things were going well. Complacency just wasn’t in Gifford’s vocabulary.

Bob on the other hand, only wanted to hear what was going well.

Bob hired me to “bring us up to your level.” At least that was the pitch.

The reality was something much different.

I’ll never forget presenting to Bob a status of the division I had taken over. The division’s revenue had dropped from $100M/year to $10M/year in the year before I joined the company.

It was my job to turn the division around. The issues were not complex to fix, so I was excited to explain how to fix the division to Bob.

“Now you’ve done it!” Bob said after I explained the first thing we needed to fix.

“Now you’ve done it!” Bob said after I explained the second thing we needed to fix.

“Now you’ve done it!” Bob said after I explained the third thing we needed to fix.

Bob then stood up looked at me and said, “I never want to have another meeting like this again.”

Bob then walked out the door.

Nowhere was the difference between Gifford and Bob more obvious to me. Gifford would have demanded knowing where the problems were.

Working with Gifford was not for the faint of heart. Sometimes the meetings with Gifford were messy.

And sometimes the meetings with Gifford became violent yelling matches. More often than not, problems were uncovered and resolved.

Bob didn’t want to know where the problems were. In Bob’s case, the emperor truly had no clothes.

I never in my remaining time working with Bob ever told him about another problem again.

Difference #3: The Hedgehog Concept.

The Hedgehog concept means it’s not enough for you to just have been in business for years, but you have to be the best in something.

Maxim was either number one or number two in most of the product areas the company focused on. And the company was busy figuring out how to be number one in when they were number two.

Bob’s company was not the best in any area the company competed in. However, there was the belief that “God” had preordained the company was going to be the best just because they entered a market segment.

“Why do we expect to win in this segment? We don’t have the technology or the talent to win here,” I asked.

“Because we’re entering the market,” came the reply.

The company failed almost every single time.

Difference #4: A culture of discipline.

Gifford built Maxim on a culture of rigor and discipline. Bob seemed to take another route.

I’ll compare the product development and introduction process of the two companies as an example.

Maxim had a rigorous product development process. There were detailed reviews at each step.

A project could not go forward without approval. A product had to a have a checklist of items completed, quality had to meet a strict criteria, and all marketing collateral had to be developed and ready to go.

Bob left the product approval process in the hands of his General Managers. The General Managers, whose bonuses (including mine) were tied to the number of product introductions were completed, took liberties.

It was a case of the fox (no pun intendedJ) guarding the hen house. The division I took over had products that were introduced with no customer instructions on how to use the products. The product quality was suspect at best.

In contrast, Gifford developed a new product machine at Maxim. New products represented a substantial amount of revenue. Bob, on the other hand, would complain and complain why new products didn’t sell.

Difference #5: The Flywheel and the doom loop.

I worked with Gifford for over 11 years, and I helped Maxim grow from $40M/year to over $1B/year during my time there. Gifford was unbelievably consistent on what he wanted.

Gifford’s vision of building a great Analog IC company never wavered. It was the same in year 1 as it was in year 11. The focus was on constant and continuous improvement.

And Maxim kept methodically improving. There was no breakthrough product or breakthrough idea or breakthrough customer that catapulted Maxim to success. But you could see the progress each year as you looked back.

Bob’s vision, on the other hand, seemed to always waver. And most of the wavering was what Bob felt the “analysts” wanted the company to do.

“Wireless is hot right now, so let’s focus there,” Bob would say. So the company focus would change to wireless.

“Networking is hot, so we need to do more networking products,” Bob would say. Then the company focus would change to networking.

It didn’t matter that Bob’s company had no strategic advantage in wireless and networking. They were just hot markets that the analysts liked, so the focus changed.

Gifford’s consistent strategy allowed Maxim to consistently grow profits. Bob’s inconsistent strategy meant Bob’s was always explaining why his company missed their numbers.

The Final Difference: Be generous.

Gifford certainly wanted to personally make a lot of money. And he did.

However, Gifford had one of the most generous compensation programs in the Silicon Valley. The wealth creation went to all levels of Maxim.

Gifford’s generosity didn’t end with just wealth creation. Maxim’s healthcare plan was very generous for employees too.

Maxim had a very simple sick policy: If you’re sick, stay home. If you’re healthy, go to work. There was no paperwork required if you were sick.

The contrast with Bob couldn’t have been more dramatic.

Bob wanted to make a lot of money, but Bob was seemingly indifferent to what happened with his employees.

Bob’s stock option plan was the bare minimum compare to Maxim’s generous plan. The result was employee turnover at Bob’s company was much higher.

Bob’s healthcare plan was again the bare minimum. And premiums kept increasing year after year.

Bob’s sick policy was much different than Gifford’s. You had to fill out a time sheet if you missed a day of work.

Worse, you were required to take time off for doctor visits. So if you missed two hours to go see the doctor, you were required to log this time as sick time.

Employees resented Bob’s penny-pinching. Gifford built loyalty with his generosity.

Great leaders know how to build a loyal following.

Jack Gifford was a great leader. Bob was not a great leader.

Gifford, despite a massive ego, knew how to build a successful company for the long term. Bob did not.

Gifford understood that consistency, a focus on continual improvement, and generosity were the keys to building a loyal team.

I learned a ton about what to be a leader working with Gifford. And I learned a ton about how not to be a leader working with Bob. I applied the lessons I learned from Gifford and Bob to my own leadership style when it became my turn to build my own company.

You can do the exact same thing I did and apply these lessons to make yourself a better leader, so you can build a great company too.

 

Are you a startup CEO? Read more articles on being a CEO by clicking here.