Walter Isaacson on The Intel Trinity: Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove

Innovations don’t always look the same. Most come in physical form such as the computer, and the internet. Some innovations come in related processes like programming or agile software development. Organizations, such as Bell Labs, can be structured in innovative ways to nurture and cultivate the innovations like the transistor or the Unix operating system. And then there are those innovations that are human behavior — a corporate culture and management style unlike anything at its time. Enter the Intel Trinity: Robert Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove.

Walter Isaacson, in his new book The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution, debunks the myth of the lone genius by dissecting every major advancement in technology over the past two centuries and showing how it was a group of people, institutions, and organizations can come together to develop the innovative technologies. He looks at how three brilliant and unique individuals created the corporate culture of innovative companies today.

Robert Noyce adopted a culture from Bill Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard where he gave his employees flexible hours and plenty of freedom to determine for themselves how to accomplish their objectives. He took this approach to the next level. Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore complimented each other well. Isaacson notes:

Gordon Moore was similarly unpretentious, non-authoritarian, averse to confrontation, and uninterested in the trappings of power. Moore, always temperate and thoughtful, liked being in the lab, and he knew how to lead engineers with subtle questions or (the sharpest arrow in his quiver) a studied silence. Noyce was great at strategic vision and seeing the big picture; Moore understood the details, particularly of the technology and engineering.

Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore were great partners except for one way. Both shared an aversion hierarchy, which caused neither to be a decisive manager. Their desire to be liked made them reluctant to be tough. If there was ever a problem, they did not like to confront it. They guided people, but didn’t drive them. This is where Any Grove steps in.

Grove, a PhD in chemical engineering from Berkeley, became the third person at Intel as the director of engineering. Grove had a deep admiration for Moore’s technical skills, but he did not see eye to eye with his management style. He was bothered by Moore’s aversion to confrontation or any aspect of management beyond gentle advice. Grove felt that confrontation was one of life’s invigorating spices and a managerial duty. If there was a disagreement in the office, people would look to Noyce to make a decision, and Noyce would have a blank look on his face or just change the subject. He was not a fan of Noyce’s passive form of management. Walter Isaacson states:

“What Grove did not realize at the time, but came to understand later, was that effective management need not always come from having one strong leader. It can come from having the right combination of different talents at the top. Like a metallic alloy, if you get the right mix of elements the result can be strong.”

Peter Drucket wrote in The Practice of Management that the ideal chief executive is an outside person, an inside person, and a person of action. Grove realized that these traits could be embodied in the leadership team. Noyce was the outside guy, Moore was on the inside, and Grove was the man of action.

Arthur Rock, who funded the team at Intel, noted that it was important for the trio to each become CEO in the order that they did. He described Noyce as “a visionary who knew how to inspire people and sell the company to others when it was getting off the ground.” After that, Intel needed a leader who could ride on each new wave of technology, “and Moore was such a brilliant scientists he knew how to drive the technology.” Then, a wartime CEO was needed for the cut-throat competition, “we needed a hard-charging, no-nonsense manager who could focus on driving us as a business.” And that was Grove.

The culture at Intel permeated the Silicon Valley culture. There were no reserved parking spots for executives. Everyone, including Noyce and Moore, had the same looking cubicle. It was a culture of meritocracy.

As CEO, Noyce believed that the more open and unstructured a workplace, the faster ideas would be sparked, disseminated, refined, and applied. That people should not have to go through a chain of command to hash out an idea. Noyce empowered employees to be entrepreneurial and was comfortable letting junior employees resolve problems rather than push it up through layers of management. When responsibility was thrust onto junior engineers, they were forced to become innovative.

Noyce wasn’t a great manager, but his leadership shined because he was inspiring and smart. Intel’s business units, operating like small agile team, didn’t have to give proposals to management in order for them to take action on what they thought was the best move.

Grove was able to fill in the weakpoints of this management style by adding discipline to the mix. He would follow up and hold people accountable. One of the engineers said that “Andy would fire his own mother if she got in the way.” Another engineer explained that this was necessary in an organization headed by Noyce, “Bob[Noyce] really has to be a nice guy. It’s important forhim to be liked. So somebody has to kick ass and take names. And Andy happens to be very good at that.”

Grove began studying the art of management as if it was some engineering circuit, and would later write best-selling books Only the Paranoid Survive and High Output Management. Instead of trying to impose a hierarchy of command, he instilled a culture that was driven, focused, and detail oriented, which was lacked during Noyce’s laid back approach.

From what I’ve said so far, it would seem that Grove was a tyrant. One who would bring down the hammer. But Grove’s pixie-like charisma protected him from this perception. His eyes lit up when he would smile. “With his Hungarian accent and goofy gin, he was by far the most colorful engineer in the valley.” Walter Isaacson comments:

“Grove nurtured Noyce’s egalitarian approach — he worked in an exposed cubicle his entire career, and loved it — but he added an overlay of what he called ‘constructive confrontation.’ He never put on airs, but he never let down his guard. In contrast to Noyce’s sweet gentility, Grove had a blunt, no-bullshit style. It was the same approach Steve Jobs would later use: brutal honesty, clear focus, and a demanding drive for excellence. ‘Andy was the guy who made sure the trains all ran on time,’ recalled Ann Bowers. ‘He was a taskmaster. He had very strong views about what you should do and what you shouldn’t do and he was very direct about that.’”

“Despite their different styles, there was one thing that Noyce and Moore and Grove shared: an unwavering goal of making sure that innovation, experimentation, and entrepreneurship flourished at Intel. Grove’s mantra was ‘Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive.’ Noyce and Moore may not have been paranoid, but they were never complacent.”

Originally published at seekingintellect.com on October 20, 2014. Subscribe to the Seeking Intellect Newsletter