Steve Jobs: A Genius, Yes; A Role Model for the Rest of Us, No Way
blogs.scientificamerican.com
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Other than that, his only basis for the conclusions in this article is something we all know: Jobs was supposed to have been a difficult man.
This article may be correct, in the way a broken clock is twice a day. Jobs may well (a) have been a jerk in a way that would normally make someone ineffective as a manager, and (b) have had other qualities that compensated for that; and maybe (c) the latter qualities were extremely rare. But we are told practically nothing about (a), (b), or (c).
This would have been a better article if he'd just written "Steve Jobs was successful, but beware of imitating his bad qualities, because most people couldn't get away with behaving like he did."
While it's certainly his decision to make, I think it's entirely reasonable for people to say he doesn't deserve the worship he's been receiving.
I have run some two-headed departments and it's my preferred way to manage.
So is not evil if a person in germany during the Second World War discriminated jews rigth?
An act can be "bad", or "injust", but describing it as evil is bullshit. Evil, for one, is a theological term, that doesn't explain anything. It's like saying "the satan made me do it".
Like, it wasn't because of being "evil" when people in the US discriminated (and exterminated) Indians and enslaved blacks.
They didn't do it because they were "evil people", they did it because their societal norms and prevailing ideology permitted it and even encouraged it. And the norms got such because of catering to various collective interests (like, taking away the indian land, exploiting cheap labor).
Half way through the biography and there are plenty of more sinister examples of behaviour (e.g. denying paternity).
However, I believe the term is "flawed genius". The world is a better place when a few of them succeed! Of course, an unsuccessful flawed genius is better known as an "unbearable asshole".
The writer of this piece, Gary Stix, seems to assume that in order for one to be a role model they must be perfect.
Using this logic the very notion of a role model is foolish.
I think the article, whether successfully or not, tries to show a definition more like that, no "perfection" involved.
Only Steve Jobs could live the life of Steve Jobs, for better or worse. We can learn volumes from his life and work, but wisdom is learning how these lessons apply differently to each of us.
Personally, I think there's a bigger lesson to be learned though: you shouldn't emulate anyone except yourself. Otherwise, you're doomed to a life of being a poor impression of someone else.
I couldn't disagree more. "Myself", insofar as I want to "be myself", describes my values rather than my habits. I often meet inspirational people who are very talented in ways I admire, and usually this is because of their habits, their wisdom, facts they've learned the hard way.
I do my best to notice how they've achieved this, and imitate whatever meshes with my personality, my priorities, and my values.
If anyone has to gain the position to figure out what it took to be him.. try building just one company that was not just a quick flip.. try working out one extremely difficult idea against certain approaching defeat.
Building insanely great things will push you limits that the rest of the planet, to put it respectfully, does not even know exists. It also produces incredible shear stress that will make you appear as a complete psychopath to many normal people.. including employees, co-founders etc.. at times.. if your level of care is past what they have about the game.
" Now while hopefully the work appeared inevitable. Appeared simple, and easy, it really cost. It cost us all, didn’t it? But you know what? It cost him most. He cared the most. "
Now, not just from a management perspective - Is this something to emulate? Do we want a society where everyone is like this?
In my opinion, people like Jobs need level-headed, strong people around them. Without people who are willing to work with them despite their flaws, guys like Jobs would probably end up in the gutter with a knife in their back.
I think Jobs was just a guy who had a vision for computers, and knew that he had to be relentless to reach that goal in a short amount of time. I also think Jobs is probably one of the most level-headed people in the tech industry. Check the beginning of this video, very observant and calm, and I don't think he is necessarily as self-centered as you wrote.
But... genius? Unless we're talking genius manipulator (the best con men are almost magical in their abilities), for me the jury is still out.
EDIT: Actually, the comments on the site itself bring up a lot of great points along the lines of what I wrote.
EDIT2: Thanks for interesting discussions, was certainly worth the karma-risk.
"but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"
Okay.
Well, the thing about that is, Apple as a whole almost burned to the ground once upon a time.
A man's singular vision turned that around. A company on the brink of death turns into one of the most valuable in all the world.
If the guy who can do that isn't a genius, we might as well give up on using the word.
I think there is plenty of room for praising people for quite astonishing accomplishments, but I don't necessarily equate accomplishment with genius. It's not a knock on someone if they really pull something off but they don't get called genius. Genius is in the mind.
Agree completely.
Steve didn't accomplish all he did using his fists.
EDIT: this reply actually looks more personal than I wanted it to be, and given your clarification, have my apologies...
Well. Okay then.
I would rephrase the pythonesque quotation "But apart from the polish in sanitation pipes, better scrubs for doctors, yellow paint on roads, cleaner baths and lighter shields for soldiers, what have the Romans done for us?"
Personally I'm very much in the second camp. I expect my hardware to keep up with me, not to change my habits to accommodate my hardware.
The right side sagged from where my wrist rests, a problem eliminated by the unibody.
I put my thumb through the LCD, replaced it, and not being very handy, the case lost its factory fresh fit and finish.
All Einstein did was add a small error-correction term to Newton's theory.
The term "Reality Distortion Field" was invented for Jobs
Have you even met any? The reason I'm asking is that to know genius one has to see one in person. And the work of a genius cannot even come to be without the persona. It is always the personality that fascinates and then as if trying to find the essence for themselves, people go around looking at the work and life of a genius, pondering what it is that makes them so.
And its passion. Pure single minded passion. The dark side of the force, all the way. Thats what genius is.
Another thing they have in common is that they simply cannot be classified in concise terms without calling them genius.
But it is certainly more common than an inspired and/or visionary business managers. At least I have met many of the former type and maybe only one or two of the latter. And they will probably never get a chance to take a shot at making a story as Job's.
That he was a genius manager is even a bigger cred to me. Since keeping ones true self and inner voice intact in cacophony of minds, emotions and ambitions that is a multinational is a worthy feat of its own accord.
Hell, the biggest team I ever got a shot at running was 15 people big. And for myself the wide variety of emotions and motives experienced, was barely a taste of what it means to run an organization 10's of thousands people strong.
I think plenty of other companies probably had a chance to launch something like the iPod, but shied away thinking the strategy too risky. Or maybe the CEO wanted to go for it, but couldn't convince the rest of the board to trust his judgment. Jobs greatest achievement was bringing all this talent and financing and creativity and vision together and using it to take risks (in the market/domain of consumer electronic and personal computing). With Jobs gone, will Apple still be able to function the same way? I don't know.
You don't have to call it genius but the man certainly had something.
Anyone who wants to paint Steve Jobs as mostly a salesman is showing utter ignorance. Salesmen mostly sell stuff made by a product guy. They don't work on building a product that is perfect to their vision. Steve Jobs believed in perfecting products as much as selling.
2) I'm concerned about black-and-white thinking. As great as Jobs was, he was only a human. He had all the frailties and foibles as other humans. I don't want the tech community to put Jobs up on a shelf where he could do no wrong and he's some sort of patron saint of technology or something. That's not fair to Jobs or us.
Once enough time has passed, and it hasn't yet, a 3-dimensional picture of Jobs will emerge, warts and all. At that point we might get into a good discussion about what kind of role model he was. Odds are, parts of his story will be very inspirational and parts will not. That's usually the way these things work.
Seems like everybody is in a hurry today to get to the next story. Geesh folks, give things time.
I think that quote should be kept in mind, because Steve Jobs was a deeply complex and dynamic man. His wife told Isaacson not to pull any punches. From what I've read, and from the things people closest to him have recounted, they did not. A lot of people are having a hard time reconciling the insanely great with the insane. Humans are complicated.
Take this vulgar example:
Idea 1: "I really want to have sex with that waitress" - "She is so hot" Idea 2: "I really do no want to have sex with that waitress" - "Because I have a wife and kid" Conclusion: "I will do nothing silly"
People are speaking as if Jobs was alone in his truculent and persnickety management style, and alone in using that to extract good things from the people around him while simultaneously pissing others off.
My view is that you need a balance of Jobs and Cooks to run a company. I've been very fortunate to work for one place that had this, and while difficult, it made me better.
EDIT: That being said, I worked for 30 year industry veterans in their fields and they were demanding but fair and well earned their ability to inspire through demand. I loathe to think of how many Steve Job's "taught me the ways" middle managers we'll see justifying being dicks because of honoring a legacy.
Instead of merely working for incompetents, our managers will also be dicks.
There is a lot more to Jobs than his dickish personality. If you can't see beyond it and wanna fearmonger, you should take your own advise.
As for non-dick SJ wannabes, hey why not? We're all wannabes to some extent.
FTA: "It would be unfortunate if the remembrance of Jobs spawns a legion of Steve wannabes. Jobs, in geekspeak, was an 'N of 1.'"
The recurring theme is that he made a lot of mistakes in life and people should carve out their own path, and specifically not try to emulate him.
The book specifically quotes Jobs and his wife's desire not to sugarcoat anything in the least, and from what I've read, the author abided by those wishes, for better or worse.
Steve Jobs probably wouldn't make a good boss for everyone but that's OK, he only needed to be boss of one or two companies, Apple and Pixar. The other companies in the world can run their company as they see fit. Other bosses probably make good bosses for other personality types. You simply can't please all of the people all of the time. Sometimes you need to refuse to do things do that you can do the other things well.
More on real leadership. http://www.slideshare.net/guesta3e206/colin-powells-leadersh...
Other bosses probably make good bosses for other personality types.
I disagree. If an organization is a round hole, the only person who benefits is the round peg who built it (if anyone benefits). The key is building a hole that can accommodate as many pegs as possible, even if some pegs require a bit more "accommodation" than others.
Considering Steve Jobs seems to have plenty of respect and friends, he's not a complete asshole. Right?
So what is he? Why even mention the complete asshole(and risk suggesting that he was one) when by your own logic he wasn't a complete asshole.
'Old Steve'? People grow. How does an individual overcoming personality 'disorders' make someone a bad role model? Sounds like the last paragraph of the article is actually contradicting to the headline.
6 - 7 years is hardly "soon".
Steve Jobs was an adept at connecting with human emotions (consumers and employees alike) and not only built products which did the same, but also marketed them in a deeply human way.
I believe it is this connection that attracts so many people.
"Well, I love the world-changing products with the amazing attention to every detail that requires extremely difficult execution of the highest order. Oh by the way, could I have that delivered to me in a nice and laid-back manner?" Sorry, life just doesn't work that way.
I'd be willing to guess that a lot of the personality traits that made Jobs an extreme asshole at times were essential in enabling his success.
This difference, I suppose, is between someone bending your will to theirs, reducing you terribly in the process, and someone who sees you failing to deliver everything you're capable of, and pushing you (hard) to do what he thinks what you can.
The former doesn't care about who you are. The latter cares deeply, and expresses in by placing genuine faith in you. Everything being said by the people who worked with him indicates that they feel humbled and honored by the experience. It's hard to get upset with someone's approach when you know in your bones that it got you to the top of your game.
What people feel in response to that is love.
"He was dubbed a megalomaniac, but Steve Jobs often gambled on young, largely inexperienced talent to take Apple forward; Jony Ive and his team prove that such faith was spot on."
I say probably very correct owing to the Al Gore's remembrance speech about the love and genuineness in respect that Steve held for others in the 'Celebrating Steve' event.
I have nothing to say regarding his demeanor until I finish Isaacson's work, but unless it turns out that he was another Edison finagling Tesla, I doubt my opinion will change too much.
Does anyone know if the new biography attempts this?
From the 60 minutes interview with Issaacson, it seems like a fairly honest appraisal of Jobs.
I'm a third into the Isaacson bio right now.
The following thought popped into my brain as I went:
"Wow. This is some Speaker for the Dead shit, right here."
It's an honest, unbiased, thorough appraisal of his life. Very human. Very real.
I think it's brutally honest and really portrays Steve as a mere mortal subject to the ups and downs of life, while presenting various perspectives. I've been really impressed with how it doesn't try to sugar coat anything, and I find myself hating Steve yet at the same time admiring him.
It really does seem to put you through his life, and in the end you do have to make a call on what to make of it, and what you can take away. I think it really added depth and nuance to the way he's portrayed and illustrated the costs of his way of running things.
Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and so on and so on.
The point is, with that much money and fame and responsibilities would any of us not be a little "off the mark"? (This is assuming "we" aren't already). From my point of view, people are strange.
Hasn't anyone seen Citizen Kane?
When Jobs started Apple, he was young and very unpolished in his interpersonal style. When he re-joined it the culture had become something that he wasn't entirely responsible for, having been out of the company for over a decade. Also, the impression I've had of Jobs is that he was very harsh on VPs (whose high salaries and job status justify the difficulty) but not on lower-level employees.
That said, the worst thing about Steve Jobs isn't the man himself. It's the Fake Steve Jobs's out there. No, I don't mean the parody blogger. I mean the two-bit clowns who think that being "visionary" gives them the right to behave like complete assholes because that's what they understand Jobs's management style (I've never worked for him) to be.
There was a lot of good to Steve Jobs, and apparently a lot about him that was difficult. A lot of people assume they have the good and that it allows them to be difficult. That's toxic.
The "fake Steve" (he actually cited Steve Jobs to justify his personal shortcomings) whom I encountered was an "entrepreneur" who lied (to his angel investor and employees) for over 3 years to keep people in his company. I left when I got tired of the insanity, micromanagement, and dishonesty, but I lost a hell of a lot of time there.
What does genius mean? Has the meaning changed over time? Look it up, observe the etymology.
There's much more to being a man of character than simply being a man of genius. And Jobs failed to show he was a man of character. We have no evidence to suggest he was a man of character.
If the article is meant as a cautionary note to young people who might mistakenly attribute character to anyone who posseses what we define as genius (again, look it up), then it's certainly justified.
There's a common misperception promoted by business journal type literature that to be a financially successful CEO one needs to treat others well. This is simply not true. There is at least one study that has examined the issue but the vast majority of studies aim at other conclusions. They avoid the question.
The reason to treat others with respect is not one that arises out of the pursuit of financial gain. It comes from another source. You might say it's rooted in a man's character.