Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs: Redefining The CEO
conq writes "BusinessWeek has a nice piece on how Steve Jobs is redefining the job of being a CEO. From the story: 'Just over a decade ago, Steve Jobs was considered washed-up, a has-been whose singular achievement was co-founding Apple Computer back in the 1970s. Now, given the astounding success of Apple and Pixar, he's setting a new bar for how to manage a Digital Age corporation.'"
Seriously-in the words of Yogi Berra, could it be "deja vu all over again" for Pixar and Disney. Hmmm-the iMouseketeer!
"Who's your Diaper Daddy?"
Not as funny as the title, "Redefining the SEO".
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Indeed, one of the facts of life is that everyone gets topped by somebody who is better, or by somebody who will take it to the next level. That is why I am very intrigued to see who will do that to Jobs. He has already set the bar pretty high, and whoever comes along afterwards will really have to do something spectacular to be noticed, and to earn their name.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
No.
he's setting a new bar for how to manage a Digital Age corporation
literally.
Tech companies have long been ham-handed marketers. Their best is usually utilitarian or cute (remember ``Dude, you're getting a Dell''?). Yet Apple has consistently stood out for aspirational ads with a heavy dose of counterculture rebellion. The ``Think Different'' series featured John Lennon, Rosa Parks, and Pablo Picasso. The message isn't about trimming costs by 10%. It's this: If you dream of changing the world, we want to help you do it. Jobs even had a hand in writing the copy.
So...if your ads are on crack then you're a good CEO?
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
he hasn't done a monkey dance or even thrown chairs? How can he be a real CEO?
Business Week also has a podcast where they talk with the author of the story to provide a litte more depth. It was a fairly entertaining discussion where they discuss a little of the history of how it all came about and the relationship between Steve Jobs and Disney.
NeXT did reach a level of stardom within the engineering, scientific, and academic community. However, that was due to their innovative systems, rather than Jobs himself.
Indeed, if you went into nearly any modern engineering firm or research lab around 1991 or so, you'd often hear about how many of the employees there wanted even just access to a NeXT system, if they couldn't have one for themselves. Often times the price of such a system was quite prohibitive, but those who did have access were often far more productive than their peers.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Sorry, but somehow I expect a link to a story when I hear the word "piece". You know, with more than perhaps 200 words, especially given the subject.
This is just a short, non-interesting slideshow.
No news here - move along.
TFA is only 7 paragraphs long (with 7 pictures), but this sums it up for me:
"Other CEOs may focus on finance or sales. Jobs spends most of his time trying to come up with the next blockbuster product."
He's not there for the money, he's there to change the world. Well, at least, he succeeds in making us believe he's not after the money... Of course, MacOS X is not open source (yet?!), he's running a corporation after all!
I remember his quote: "Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me. Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful, that's what matters to me"
I don't think a majority of CEO can honestly say this nowadays.
Animoog.org
I can't believe that the board of directors of Disney is going to include Jobs. Ten years ago I would have said, "When they pry it from Michael Eisner's cold, dead hands." So maybe it's a good thing that people are sitting up and noticing CEOs who aren't just businessmen with suits and a book by Jack Welch.
Jobs' insistence on controlling all aspects of a product -- from hardware and software to the service that comes with them -- is the new blueprint.
To be sure, Apple is a unique presence in the world of digital media, but the slideshow picture they put alongside this caption was that of an iMac. As far as computers go, total control of the platform is not a new idea. It is, in fact, the oldest one. That type of solution stretches back as far as the room-sized big iron of the '60s and before, but it was most publicly visible, I think, during the '80s, when several companies were vying for dominance of the personal computer market. Commodore, Atari, Apple, IBM - they all had their own little universes where you bought their hardware, ran their OS, and dealt with their disk format. Each company dreamed of taking over with its own end-to-end solution, but that didn't happen. It can be argued that the market is simply too large for any one company to hope for dominance of that kind.
The coolest voice ever.
Humm.. wanted to find the source of the quote, before being asked. Looked on Jobs' entry on wikiquote and haven't found it. I must say wikiquote isn't very exhaustive on Jobs' account.
Animoog.org
I had a NeXT slab way back in the day. It was a good computer. And somewhat cheaper than a Sun, DEC, or HP Apollo workstation. The DSP in the cube was an advance. And the software -- as seen in Mac OS X -- was certainly nice. But no one else was coding in objective C, and X was the defacto display standard not DPS. Still, I really liked it.
Steve Jobs is certainly a mastermind. There's no doubt that he's good at what he does. But the question is, where is he heading? For a long time now, there have been multiple sides to his maneuvering. One theory is that he trying to directly challenge Microsoft. Supporting evidence would be his switch to Intel processors, his continued development of iWork (many think Apple is working on a competitor to Excel), Apple's closed business model and their careful manipulation of the media world. However, to truly become a power player in the computer market they need to seriously drop prices. Another argument might be that Jobs is trying to take over the next big frotier, the TV. Although hundreds of companies have released DVRS and media center PC's, none (except Tivo, which has a monthly charge) have made a product cheap enough and easy enough to make it truly mainstream. Many think it likely that the Mac mini will be converted to a media center Mac based on front row. And then there's the iPod, which by itself has opportunity to explode into a dozen other markets. Many people see Apple entering the cell phone market. Other's see them becoming the single driving force in the upcoming explosion of mobile TV. Still others view the iPod as taking music one step further releasing iPod boom boxes and stereos (this type of speculation is still on the same level however as the Apple TV we kept hearing about). The next year will be the defining era of Apple, will they remain the iPod and high end PC maker, or will they come into the market in ways no one could have forseen in the past?
you had me at #!
Unbelievable, 7 pages to smear out text that could fit easily on a single page. It takes longer to load one such page than to read it.
It's scaring readers away. I am not waiting for your page to load, and I am not clicking multiple times to read a single article.
And while I am at it. Since the invention of tabs, will everyone please stop using links that insist on opening in a new window. I have one window, perhaps two with multiple tabs. And new links are opened in their own tab. But, noooo, sites still insist links are opened in a new window.
Want to keep me as a return visitor? STOP ANNOYING ME. Stop dictating how I can access your data, if you want me to see it.
Entertainments companies in particular are hurt by focus groups and rule by committee. Disney turned out a better product when Walt was still around. Turner Entertainment faired much better under Ted, than under Time Warner/AOL.
I don't get it.
Apple is the ultimate consumer lock in and selling your personality is suppose to that alright? I don't like monopolist and Jobs is a greater extreme then Gates.
I will say, Ipod had got enough potential if Jobs takes that genre in the right direction, to accelerate new tech by consumers in areas where adoption might be slow (like cellphones (or at least the tech) and hopefully change how the tech is used and logical progression of PDA-like form factor (and everything PDA aren't used for today--that innovation doesn't normally come from those kinds of companies-->mindset is too stiffling and too closed, left)).
Quicktime really really sucks btw. heh
Disney has the IP but lacks in contemporary performance (a twisted sense of morality) thanks to professionals who want to use the company as a peer influence. The art of telling a good story was killed by imposing politically correct on people who know better. If Jobs does will likely do same thing to Pixar, hype will be predictable same with knowing when to sell. (google anyone?-->has absolutely huge opportunities but is wasting away in stagnation).
Thanks Nick. I tried to be a good 'net citizen and added it to wikiquote.org. Cheers.
Animoog.org
i thought that what was interesting is that he insists on having something to do with everything. control freaks are everywhere, not all of them are as effective as jobs has been so far. and yes, this "piece" is sadly lacking depth.
The real question is whether Jobs will become CEO of Disney/Pixar. If he does, he'll probably have to give up Apple, and move to LA. Running Disney is a full time job.
Most CEOs are just middle managers who got promoted to the top spot; either from within or were hired from another company. But the thing is, what makes a good middle manager (attention to detail, thinking about finances, day to day stuff) is exactly what makes a poor CEO. To be a great CEO, you need to think about strategy, where your market is going, where there is new markets, ner tech, etc... - Which is exactly what Jobs does. Saying he's "trying to come up with the next blockbuster product." is over-simplifying what he does.
It's sad that corps have this mentality that you have to work your way up through the ranks before becoming a CEO. But the problem is, what gets you promoted on the lower levels actually hurts you as a CEO. (There's a reason why the average CEO job lasts less then 2 years - they fired.) If Jobs were concentrating an each department's finances and other details, he would have missed the boat on these new products.
Gates on the other hand, is not a visionary. He is a follower (which can pay off big), but look at MS's strategy: throw money at anything new. Apple on the other hand creates something new.
I think my point is made and I don't want to turn /. into a MBA class! :-(
It seems the main thing that distinguishes Jobs, according to the slideshow, is that he knows his companies' products to the point where he is unafraid to get involved with them at any level from suppliers of suppliers to design to marketing. In other words, he thoroughly knows his business.
A CEO who thoroughly knows his business redefines what a CEO is? This merely highlights the disease that has infected much of corporate America, namely that you don't have to know shit about your business or product, all you have to know is how to manage people, whatever that means.
This is about as effective as the idea that you don't have to know jack about math, or physics, or history in order to teach them; all you have to be is a good teacher, whatever the hell that means.
News Flash: Intelligence, experience, knowledge and motivation are far more important in running a company than an MBA. Steve Jobs illustrates this. News at 11.
Jobs is an artist selling art supplies. For most of their history Macs have enjoyed their greatest success as tools for graphic designers. Design always has required a single, personal vision to succeed. Those great looking toasters and clocks and cars that industry turned out in the middle of the 20th century weren't designed by committee. There were rather a handful of recognized top designers, some of whom spanned everything from streamlined steam locomotives to soap wrappers.
So Jobs has been an industrial designer producing tools mostly used by graphic designers, who of course are sensitive to good industrial design. That's worked. More recently he's gone into the music/fashion accessories business - also one which melds easily with design, and also one where to top lines always come from a single designer's vision rather than committee. And with Pixar, as the good-looking but shallow-on-info slide show says, he knew enough about "creatives" to keep the teams small and together.
None of this should be taken to imply that Jobs' success illustrates the right approach for industries in which design is not properly the central focus. For instance, Carter was famously a micro-managing president. Look how that worked out. The Soviet economy was micro-managed from the top (and they even started out as a culture with some very good designers). Results? Nada. The hard-earned lesson that micro-managing is bad still applies across most of the spectrum. Jobs is just fortunate to be in one of the few niches where the generalization fails.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Margaret Whitman's company (Ebay) is bigger
Larry Ellison (Oracle) has been around longer (without leaving the company at least)
Eric Schmidt's company (Google) gets an article on Slashdot every few hours
Steve Balmer's company (Microsoft) sells more Operating Systems
I guess to Jobs credit he founded a very successful company, then left and it tanked and came back and it became a great company again, but I just don't think that there's no question about him being number one as this article has implied.
No Sigs!
I recall reading a story about the development of the IPOD. Several times Jobs looked at the prototype and said, "Change it, I don't like this feature." Because he controlled Apple this could happen even if it caused the schedule to slip and cost $$$. When you are right this is great. On the other hand Henry Ford stuck with the Model T too long, because he misread the consumer's needs.
Jobs certainly has the ability to judge what will make something become a unique product. Wonder if he will have the same skills at picking movies for Disney to produce.
I don't buy it!
n/m
There are alot interesting things in the slide show associated with this piece. For example:
"Jobs has believed that small teams of top talent will outperform better-funded big ones."
I think this is a very important lesson that few CEOs of big companies understand. It's why companies like Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan's Company) can accomplish so much with so little.
why are people so obsessed with rewarding single people with success of organizations?
Why is it steve jobs that is responsible for all the success of apple?
why was it hitler that was responsible for nazi germany?
Why do humans always have to make everything about one person?
This is retarded. Companies are people and teams. Not people. Countries are people. Not presidents. Parties. Committees. As soon as people stop making decisions this way maybe we'll start making some progress.
--- ask me about nihilism, I will have nothing to tell you.
You don't come up with cool sayings like that unless you're right into it. (Or unless you have a great PR department, which I don't believe was the case).
My impression of Jobs is that he's simply entertaining his mania. --He sees possible futures where technology becomes an idealized, humanity-altering version of itself, and he's simply trying to realize this vision by following and then occupying what seem to him the obvious and inevitable steps.
Is he angling to go head-to-head with Microsoft? I doubt it. Guys like Jobs find reward and adrenalin rushes, etc., through realizing creative vision. Competition and the dark 'joy' of destroying competitors, and the 'joy' of collecting all the money in the world pale in comparison. Jobs is entirely capable of 'losing' to Gates, because winning and losing are of little importance when one's goal is merely to shape and advance. (Even if shaping and advancing mean being a control-freak, which is typical for people like Jobs. Nobody else can see it right or therefore do it right, so why muck about depending on others?)
Time for a little more metaphysical etymology. . .
"Gates" - Not quite the same as a door; doors can be opened and closed by regular individuals. A gate implies a door which is watched and controlled by somebody else, one which is designed to limit and control the flow of that which enters and exits. Bill exerts control over the flow of information.
"Jobs" - Tasks which need doing. Steve follows the work toward his peculiar vision, and then does it, no matter how ludicrous it may appear.
--His moves will at first seem irrational to the sharks, (and frustrated board members), because he likes to invest and play rather than invest and reap. But then when the circumstances are right and creativity blossoms, he suddenly seems like a genius.
My only trouble is that he's embraced the idea that people don't like to think outside certain boundaries and want to be coddled, which may well be true. This bothers me, because while he's out there changing the world, I have to live in it. --And I do not like to be coddled or to have somebody else do my thinking for me.
Candy-coated buttons piss me off. Complexity does not scare me.
-FL
I'd like to see Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs in some kind of TV trivia game show for charity.
Here's the twist: Bill would have to answer questions about Apple, and Steve would have to answer questions about Microsoft. They are both keen competitors, I think many would be surpised at how much they knew about each other's business. And to avoid bruised egos, both charities would "win" with a large prize at the end. Wouldn't that be cool?
Because most people in their lives simply manage to get to work on time, do as they are instructed, and pay their taxes. This behavior pattern does not inspire much of anything to the casual on-looker.
Having a "vision" isn't uncommon. Uncommon, however, is the person who is brave and strong and skilled enough to go about realizing it.
Many people strive to be so capable, and thus they look up to those who have managed it. Role models are what they are for this reason, or so I think.
-FL
3% yeah, but it's the top 3%.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Man, has to be the biggest thing I ever saw, swallowing up sober journals like BusinessWeek.
The metoo's are clustered around adoringly because he hasn't said BOOGA WOOGA this week...
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
The biggest factor that I see is recognition of top talent. This is essentially the same thing I see Google doing.
"Jobs has believed that small teams of top talent will outperform better-funded big ones. He has used the same approach at Pixar, where creative chief John Lasseter has led the way in creating blockbusters like Toy Story and Finding Nemo. Jobs also outsources far more selectively than his rivals. He'd rather have all his creatives working together than save a few bucks by outsourcing such work overseas."
I work designing telecom software and I see the opposite. Software personal here are hired and managed like cattle. They throw bodies at problems and the cheaper the bodies, the better(we are currently ramping India and China labs while downsizing Texas labs). They create a process that is aimed at the lowest common denominator and that is the result it has, lowest common denominator performance.
If you want to be the best, you hire the best and remove obstacles from their path, and demand their best.
I have occasionally had the priviledege to work in an environment that empowered the talented employees and encouraged them to do great things. It is amazing. But those days are gone now.
Some have an almost accusatory tone when referring to Jobs micromanaging. I think of it as taking a direct interest in the quality and showing it. Encouraging his people to do great things.
I would rather be encouraged by a perfectionist wanting great things, than the mindless hordes of management graduates with decks of powerpoint slides and MS project plans indicating when every piece is projected to be done by the headcount. Mindlessly they shuffle bodies around when reality doesn't line up to projections.
Building leading technology will always be a least partially like producing great art. It will be the domain of creative driven talent, not commodity bodies monitored in MS project plan.
He's a bigger loser than he was a decade ago.
Loser? When you're not in the game to 'win', losing only means not being able to continue playing.
One of my favorite personality types is the one which pisses off guys like you by not caring about winning or losing in the boring conventional terms so many people think hold validity. Creativity is everything. Greed is a disease. --This, I believe, is a Universal truth which shapes our reality, and once you figure it out, you can fly.
There's a reason why a fellow who has only 'conquered' 3% of the computer market is such a recognized name. It's because he's learned one of the key secrets of life; how to have fun while everybody else is agonizing over which way the ball is being kicked.
Who would you enjoy meeting more at a party? --A boring conservative money-getter, or a 'loser' who isn't scared to dream and get excited about it? All my friends are technically 'losers', but they live happily, without fear or want, and they light up the world. All the money-getters I've met, by contrast, are like pre-fab appliances with 2-dimensional social skills. These are the 'winners'. Hmm.
-FL
I have been trying to get his autograph for 15 years. Now I think he's risen to a level that it will be impossible. There is going to be a big hole in my autographs of people that wear turtlenecks every day.
"why are people so obsessed with rewarding single people with success of organizations? Why is it steve jobs that is responsible for all the success of apple? why was it hitler that was responsible for nazi germany? Why do humans always have to make everything about one person? This is retarded. Companies are people and teams. Not people. Countries are people. Not presidents. Parties. Committees. As soon as people stop making decisions this way maybe we'll start making some progress."
Here's a news flash for you: the vast majority of the human race needs some sort of direction in any organizational enterprise. The guy ultimately responsible gets the credit for the organization's success, but he also gets the blame should things go wrong. The perfect example is the crew of a ship. Sure the crew all know their jobs, or should, but it's up to the captain to make sure that the jobs are being done to the benefit of the ship and crew. He's the one who has to decide where the ship is going; how best to get there; use the resources aboard, material and human etc. Sure, the other officers can give him the best advice, even the correct advice, but ultimately, somebody has to make the decision. And if you think you can operate a ship by committee, you're sadly mistaken.
It's not a matter of obsessively rewarding single people with the success of the enterprise, it's about having a focus of direction and responsibility. Your suggestion that progress can be made without such a focus is simplistic to say the least. In an anarchistic society who makes the decisions about garbage collection, public safety, environmental protection, legislation etc? And don't be so naive as to suggest that we'll all just group hug and sing "Kumbaya" and the good inherent in humanity will magically make these things sort themselves out. The average human is more than willing to pass the buck and let somebody else worry about this stuff.
You know, everybody says humans are the dominant species on Earth. But I question that.
Cheetahs run faster.
Gorillas are stronger.
Giraffes are taller.
Dolphins are smarter.
I guess to the humans' credit, they founded some very successful cities, sometimes they wreck them in wars but they become great cities again, but I just don't think there's no question about them being number one as the conventional wisdom implies.
-----
The point of this post is what makes Steve Jobs successful may be what makes humans successful: The ability to come up with a vision and integrate many abilities into a new combined ability that's more powerful than any individual ability. Commentators often refer to Apple's products that way: They're not the best at any one thing, but they're so consistently thought out and integrated that they end up working better, easier and in more generally reliable and appealing way than most competing products.
Seriously. That was a 'nice piece'?
It told us two things: 1. Jobs micromanages and 2. Jobs prefers small teams.
Whoopee. But, there's nothing revolutionary there.
During the Internet boom, we thought that computer companies would become fair places to work. Post-boom, we think that blogs & transparency will take over the world. But Jobs fires whole departments from Apple when there's a leak in some insanely trivial product announcement. The place is a dictatorship. Some of their products are ok, especially compared to products from other dictatorships. But I hardly think the Slashdot crowd, impressed by technical achievements & the promise of digital liberation, is interested in celebrating mean capitalists who run private tyrannies. If he represents the future, it's going to be terribly unpleasant in the digital age.
I don't see Jobs micromanaging Disney. The big question here is what is his influence going to be. Friends now remember that Disney are the bastedes that are driving copyright law into perpetuity. Now like it or not at least in the traditional corporate sense this would seem to serve Disney's interest.
Now just who is going to stand up at Disney and say "It is now time for Mickey to enter the public domain" OR " it's great that a customer can buy a copy of Fantasia on a DVD and play it for ever" (granted we all know that 4ever and DVD is total BS). Do you really think Jobs is going to stand up and try that in the Disney culture?
Granted I hope Jobs will influence Disney's culture into some thing modern. I will not hold my breath.
Will there be an Ipod with the "Ears" ?
I think it was very savvy of Jobs to buy the computer graphics division of LucasFilm to create Pixar, but it's John Lasseter who made Pixar what it is today.
One could argue that a large part of Pixar's success has been Job's willingness to stay out of day-to-day operations and concentrate on the business side.
Read the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of this article.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
I guess Ferrari is an even bigger loser, since they don't even have
close to 3% of the car market
Indeed, Jobs says with pride that Pixar has made the tough call to stop production at some point on every one of its movies to fix a problem with a storyline or character. "Quality is more important than quantity, and in the end, it's a better financial decision anyway," Jobs told BusinessWeek last year. "One home run is much better than two doubles," he said, explaining that then there's only one marketing and production budget rather than two.
This is a profound statement of commitment and speaks volumes not only about Pixar's approach to technology, but Apple's as well. Apple's focus on Mac OS X and a high quality experience with all of its hardware--from iMac to Powerbook to Powermac to iPod nano to iPod video--is the product of a singular mind. We've all heard about Jobs' influence on all aspects of product development and what strikes me is how the above quote resembles Apple's notorious commitment to a single-button mouse. It's almost as if a one-button mouse is a metaphor in hardware for the singular attention Jobs, (hence) Apple, and Pixar devote to its products.
I hope we see a new Disney come out of this merger more than we see a new Pixar.
blog
I dislike his basic beliefs. Contrary to popular belief, he does not have a special vision other then create proprietary stuff that looks pretty so a to sucker people into buying it. He is different in that he understands that his role is that of a PR firm and not a technology company, but IMHO, that is not a good thing.
Maybe his "audience" does't mind being suckered into costly proprietary stuff that constantly becomes obsolete, but in the big picture he is really a drain. Even worse, he is a bigger distraction to the things in technology that matter - like freedom from controll. A concept the pretty proprietary world may never grasp.
>However, to truly become a power player in the computer market they need to seriously drop prices.
/. and Steve Jobs in running Apple.
Ummm... Apple is NOT a power player in the computer market? On which planet? Is Gateway a power player? Cuz Apple is far bigger than Gateway.
Macintosh sales were up 20% in the last quarter, iPods won't stay on the shelves and Apple profits almost DOUBLED last quarter....
And you want to give Steve Jobs advice?
This is why you are commenting on
'the top 3 percent' -- exactly -- as cringley said it in 'the best revenge'.
When Gates speaks about winning he means WINNING, the whole enchilada, mastery of the universe. At this point in his career, every thought that comes out of Bill Gates' mind is grandly strategic. Steve Jobs, on the other hand, thinks solely in terms of tactics, not strategy. His wins are today, tomorrow, next week, next quarter. He revels in every little chance to push people around and make things the way he wants them to be. He can't help it. It was a bad strategy, for example, to snub Gates with Vanity Fair, but in the tactical mind of Steve Jobs, it was brilliant.
In Steve Jobs' mind, he has already won. Those of us who last for a few decades in this business find our own kind of peace and Steve Jobs' is best exemplified by the George Herbert quote, "Living well is the best revenge." Apple's future as a boutique computer company is secure. He dominates Apple completely. When he doesn't feel like being a high tech mogul, he can be a movie mogul, something Gates will never be.
In Steve's mind, he has the best of everything. Apple software is cooler than Windows will ever be. Palo Alto, where Jobs lives, is trendier than Seattle. Even Jobs' plane, a Gulfstream V, is cooler than Gates' Challenger 604. It goes on and on. Gates has never even considered this latter point, but I'll guarantee you that Jobs has, and he revels in it.
For instance, Carter was famously a micro-managing president. Look how that worked out. The Soviet economy was micro-managed from the top (and they even started out as a culture with some very good designers). Results? Nada.
The two examples of which you spoke aren't very fair, to say the least. Carter didn't fail as a president because he tried to micromanage (in fact, that's one thing I really appreciate about him), he failed because he did not find his legs in Washington, and couldn't communicate with politicians to save his life (not neccessarilly a bad thing, but a bad thing if you are one). The USSR was never designed to be micromanaged, in fact, the original philosophy was completely opposite. But one person changed all that, Stalin, of which all the original revolutionaries hated and advised the party not to trust. Unfortunately, the politician most suited for the job, Trotsky, was hunted down and killed by Stalin, who basically took over the country by force. There is little doubt that if Trotsky had become the rightful leader, as Lenin had suggested, there would have been no cold war. Fear of communism only started AFTER Stalin entered the picture. Fascists have to micromanage to stay in power. But that's not to say that micromanaging can't be used for a possitive outcome.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
In my opinion, the CEO role is more about being a leader, not a manager (that's what your underlings are for). Steve Jobs is leading. He's showing vision and implementing it.
Most CEO's these days are nothing more than managers - they worry about the bottom line, their idea of raising profits is limited to cost cutting, and basically spend their time looking back at the last quarters results (to see where they can cut more costs) than looking forward.
So no, I don't think Steve Jobs is 'redefining' the CEO role - I think he's merely showing up how crap most CEOs actually are.
I predict that Woz will make a reappearance in the Apple company sometime in the near future.
Ballmer is a nothing more than a glorified cheerleader.
And if you dont believe me, take it from someone who works at Microsoft.
The only reason he has his job is because he was Bill Gates poker buddy at Harvard.
Slashdot has a nice story today redefining the word "piece."
I knew Jobs back in the early days (and again, several times later in his career.) His one real obvious talent was the ability to focus, stay focused, and keep the people around him also focused on the task at hand.
For some reason, that always seems to disappoint people. They wanted some sort of magic, focusing on any bright shiny slogan or technology associated with the current project. People expect CEO's to put on a great show, it is practically a job definition (no pun intended) these days.
Most CEO's are chosen because they look and act like CEOs. Jobs sets a high bar simply by adding the ability to concentrate on the job to that short list.
Take a look at other CEO's in this class, such as Mark Hurd when he was at NCR. Same thing; FOCUS.
No matter how knowlegable, how micro managing a CEO is, he or she cannot have a significant effect on a corporation directly; there is only 24 hours in a day, and only so much they can do.
But CEO's set the tone for a company. What they value, the company values. And if a company values focus, then the efforts of members of the company are all directed towards the same goal, and thats where success comes from.
Not a magic slogan of "saving the world", not some high fashion techtoy, not some secret mastery of arcane knowledge. Jobs could have as easily been a complete dummy running a company producing coathangers in Nebraska, whose motto was "grab it all, control it all, squeeze it till it bleeds", and he still would have suceeded, because a small army of people, focusing on a goal, will always win against a much larger, unorganized mob.
People forget that CEO's are, first and foremost, leaders, and the job description for a leader is pretty simple... LEAD!(i.e. get everyone going in the same direction.) Every other definition is just smoke and mirrors, no matter how much everyone would like to believe that it is more than that.
This is a pretty lame article that's just capitalizing on Apple's currently being in vogue. The type of lazy journalist that inhabits these mags won't ask tough questions like why is Apple not jumping on the chance to dual boot OS X and Win XP and capture the Intel market
Really?
There have been a number of articles and interviews over the years stating that he has temper tantrums at his employees. I saw one video interview where he admitted it and said he did not have a problem with it as his people knew they were good.
He has accomplished a lot as a CEO, but other CEOs have had similar accomplishments to his and they have done so while behaving like adults.
$16B+ in revenues annually. That's 4x eBay's current revenue and 3.5x Google's current revenue.
eBay's market cap is slightly higher at the moment, and Google's is in the stratosphere (does it really deserve to be valued more than IBM??)
Having said that, eBay and Google are more profitable, and Google is growing revenue faster. Apple's current 60%+ quarterly growth needs a new hit product to sustain.
-Stu
-- he's a complete asshole
"he's setting a new bar for how to manage a Digital Age corporation."
he's setting a new bar for promoting a Digital Age corporation.
Oh come on. According to your analogy, Steve Jobs is a human, and Larry Ellison is a Gorilla? Give me a break. Jobs is good, but he's not the best in my opinion. Even if you believe he's the best, you can't say that everyone else is monkey when compared to him.
No Sigs!
You all are so full of shit. How do you know Steve Jobs hasn't given large sums of money to the charities? Did you get secret information about his bank account?
So, Bill Gates makes a fuss about how charitable he is, so he is a good man, because he gives in a fashion that everyone can see and hear him doing so? I tell you what:
What a FUCKING EGOMANIC ASSHOLE, if he has to tell the world when he does some good. Maybe he needs to do, because him doing good ist such a fucking rare thing!
Neither you nor I do even have the faintest idea how much S. Jobs or anyone else is giving to charity. Just because they don't announce it publicly doesn't mean they don't give and certainly it doesn't make them worse people.
If this is going to be the intellectual level of discussion on slashdot, from now on, then my friends and neighbours it's all over.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Ah geez, I actually have to explain this?
You read my analogy too literally. I was not directly mapping each CEO to a specific animal. I was comparing the definition of "best" meaning "the best at one specialized ability" versus the definition of "best" as "the best overall performer." The parent post seemed to think that it was better to be great at only one thing than pretty darn good at a lot of things, and I thought I'd reference a well-known explanation for humanity's success that has been advanced by scientists long ago: that humans were successful because we were pretty good at a lot of things, even though we were never the best at anything.
Sorry you'd never heard of that.
For all of history, anyone who has ever been charged with leading a team to do anything... go into battle, perform sports, develop the next groundbreaking program, etc. knows that:
80% of the people are there to do what they're told (at varying levels of competency, from excellent to fair), collect a check, and get out of there.
15% of the people are there to try to do the absolute minimum possible, complain & don't do anything about it, collect a check, and get out of there.
5% of the people are superstars, who give more than asked, use their creativity to the team's benefit, in addition to doing what they do well. Superstars don't usually just perform their job well; they usually go beyond the call of duty. They purposefully become so useful to their team that they get more leverage over everyone else when it comes time to negoatiate.
Good coaches:
1. Motivate the 75% to do slightly better than normal
2. Deaccentuate the bottom 15%
3. Accentuate the superstars, whomever they might be.
This might sound simple, but it is hard. It's hard for small businesses and it is really hard for large organizations.
Most CEOs today are awful leaders and they are self-centered because they don't see it as "their business" or "their money". They become the vast 75%; show up, do CEO duties, collect a check, go home. This is why they have a lifespan of 2 years.
People who successfully do this are the people who are looked up to.
Jobs has his own cabinet of celebrities (Tevanian, Ive, etc.), he has cracked down on "bottom 15%" (disgruntled) employees revealing product info, and he has ostensibly motivated everyone else to do just a little bit better than normal.
Hence, he deserves our respect.
I had been waiting for Apple to drop prices since the IIe, but I finally ponied up for a Bondi iMac and have never regreted it. Now that the Mini is available, complaining about prices is just stupid. Cost is no longer a large obsticle to the success of OS X. When you figure out why you think $500 is more computer than you deserve, you will have gained insight on yourself.
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
Oh ok, yeah I guess creating a multibillion dollar auction house, a worldclass database, the most used search engine in the world, and a best selling OS are just specialized abilities as you've said. These executives wouldn't need "The ability to come up with a vision and integrate many abilities into a new combined ability that's more powerful than any individual ability." to do this stuff. And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
No Sigs!
Seriously though, no one thinks Dolphins are smarter than people. The truth is that humans are the best because we are the smartest. Even without opposable thumbs, we would've found a way to get it done.