[CEONEWS = Reporter Lee Jae-hoon] AI rewrites Silicon Valley. Microsoft's Satya Nadella, who transformed the "Empire of Windows" into an AI platform, and Sunda Pichai, who brought Google, the "Empire of Black," to the forefront of the generative AI competition. Both engineers and former CEOs seek innovation from a long-term perspective, but there is a clear temperature difference in their strategy and implementation. It examines how the choice of the two leaders, who are in the face of the topic of AI transition, "whether it is speed or completeness, external cooperation or internal control," has changed the company.
■ the crossroads of AI transition
From 2023 to 2025, big tech companies faced a huge transition period called 'generative AI'. Since taking office, Satya Nadella has quickly secured the "AI as a Service" infrastructure through strategic partnerships with OpenAI, using empathy and growth mindset as the basis of corporate culture. On the other hand, Sunda Pichai sought a counterattack with its own Gemini model, while protecting the search and advertising business that has served as Google's cash cow. Same AI, different directions.
■ pragmatism vs. precision management
Nadella's leadership is 'super-cooperative pragmatism'. The acquisition of GitHub, open source-friendly policies, and open AI collaboration were all paving the way for the establishment of a complementary ecosystem. By breaking down internal barriers and attracting external innovations, Microsoft achieved stable growth as a subscription model, growing Azure sales by an average of 40% per year.
In contrast, the method of Pichai is 'precision management of internal innovation'. By thoroughly adjusting the vast research organization and project, the experimental stage technology was quickly put on the product line. However, advertising market sensitivity and EU regulatory risks increase the volatility of alphabet stock prices and have undergone careful launch and verification.
■ The achievements of numbers.
Microsoft, led by Nadella, has more than tripled from $86.9 billion in sales in 2014 to about $250 billion in 2025, with a market capitalization of more than $3 trillion from $300 billion. Personal property also increased to about $1 billion, with Microsoft shares jumping 9 to 10 times.
Alphabet, which Pichai was responsible for, more than quadrupled from sales of $74.9 billion in 2015 to around $300 billion. However, stock prices fluctuated due to advertising dependence and regulatory and ethical issues, and CEO assets remained at around $1.3 billion.
■ Contrast of organizational culture
Under the slogan "Empower," Microsoft broke down barriers between R&D and business units and actively promoted open innovation with the outside world. On the other hand, Google used a 'focused strategy' by dividing research-productization-regulatory responses into labor, and adjusted the release schedule by responding sensitively to AI ethics issues.
■ Differences in crisis response
Recognizing the limitations of the Windows and Office-oriented structure, Nadella boldly cleared up failures such as mobile businesses and shifted its focus to cloud and AI. Pichai prioritized maintaining brand trust by "resolving over time" major crises such as Google Plus failures and EU antitrust fines.
■ common DNA
Based on the commonalities that both leaders were engineers, they chose structural change over short-term performance. It was obsessed with detail, made data-based decisions, and distributed global talent to operate the R&D ecosystem. Although they are different methods, they also resemble the execution power that made AI a key driver of the business model.
■ Implications for Korean Companies
The balance of speed vs. accuracy and the strategic choice of 'external cooperation vs. internal control' have great implications for Korean companies. Whether to choose to expand the ecosystem like Nadella or insist on completeness and trust like Pichai, leadership should be redesigned to match each company's cash cow and market position.
AI transition is not a matter of technology, but of leadership. On the road left by two engineer CEOs, it is time for the next generation of Korean CEOs to rewrite their DNA.
Copyright ⓒ CEONEWS 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지
본 콘텐츠는 뉴스픽 파트너스에서 공유된 콘텐츠입니다.
