I finished reading Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs over Christmas break and I can't stop thinking about it.
The book disturbed me. I love Apple products; I wanted to admire Steve Jobs. But I don't.
Great leaders don't call people names. They don't treat a person like a prince one day and a serf the next. They don't practice intimidating stares in the mirror. They don't treat relationships as if they were commodities to be traded.
It's not OK for leaders -- for anyone -- to abuse people. And I'm disturbed that Jobs is being hailed, as Isaacson writes, as "the greatest business executive of our era," rather than as a flawed leader whose extraordinary talents and organizational abilities allowed him the freedom to mistreat others.
There are those who believe that his products and his temperament were inextricably linked, and that he could not have accomplished what he did without being -- in many ways -- an ass. But I believe it's possible to be focused, control-oriented, and fanatical about one's work without being mean.
For Jobs, it appears that being and staying mean was a conscious choice. According to his biographer, Jobs:
- Trained himself to intimidate others by honing a "trick of using stares and silences to master other people."
- Denied IPO stock options to a colleague who "joined Apple when it was headquartered in Jobs' garage."
- Possessed "an uncanny capacity to know" other individuals' weak points and make them "feel small."
- Took credit for ideas that were not his. "When told of a new idea, he will immediately attack it" and, if it is a good one, "he will soon be telling people about it as though it was his own."
Isaacson came to the conclusion that Jobs "could have controlled himself if he had wanted. When he hurt people, it was not because he was lacking in emotional awareness. Quite the contrary: He could size people up, understand their inner thoughts, and know how to relate to them, cajole them, or hurt them at will."
If that's true, then Jobs hurt people because he wanted to, because doing so served his ends and gave him some sort of pleasure. And when challenged about his behavior, Jobs is reported to have said, "This is who I am, and you can't expect me to be someone I'm not."
Well, actually, we can. We don't accept this excuse from our children and we certainly shouldn't accept it from adults. Apparently, he needed help in growing up. Those around Jobs who tolerated his bad behavior did him, themselves, and their various organizations a disservice. There's no reason his legacy could not have included admirable human as well as technological works.
And what would have happened if Jobs had been held accountable for his behavior, rather than having been enabled by those who let Steve be Steve? Would we still have all our beloved "i" products? Don't fall into the trap of believing that ends justify means. None of us, not even Steve Jobs, is indispensable. He may have been a genius, but he's not the only one we've had. The fusion of personal technology and humanity would have occurred without Jobs -- at some time and in some form -- just as electricity and the telephone would exist today even if Franklin and Bell had not.
Great leaders strive to treat others with dignity. They understand that life is short and companies and products come and go. They believe that communities and organizations are accountable for taking care of people and the planet. They have gained the wisdom that today's kind words echo into future generations. If you're looking for role models, reread Jim Collins's book, Good to Great. If you do, you'll find plenty of leaders who took care of their customers, their companies, and their people by building "enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will."
Among those I spoke with about the Jobs biography, a very smart and compassionate leader made me laugh when he said, "I don't want my children to grow up to be Steve Jobs." This man wants his children to be positive role models; he wants them to succeed. And he understands that, organizationally and individually, meanness doesn't pay off.
Companies that allow abuse reduce their productive capacity as people devote a considerable portion of their creative energies to protecting themselves. The Jobs biography reveals that some of the tactics used by his subordinates in order to survive in the dysfunctional environment he willfully created included lying in order to ensure that the right work got done with appropriate resources. What a waste! It makes one wonder if Apple would be even more strongly positioned today with a founding leader who knew how to play well with others.
Individuals who think they can succeed by being mean are kidding themselves. Companies want people who can get things done in a way that builds relationships rather than subverts them. Jobs's gifts and a considerable amount of luck allowed him to be spectacularly successful in spite of his pettiness and lack of emotional maturity. We should take care not to mistake his weaknesses for strengths; we shouldn't try to emulate behaviors that make success -- in life and in business -- harder to achieve.
As you attempt to glean lessons from Jobs's leadership, focus on the good and discard the bad. Apple, I believe, succeeded in spite of Jobs's flaws, not because of them.
This blog is re-posted with permission from cfo.com and CFO Magazine.
Interesting article. I am certainly in favour of using people’s strengths to best ends, but it’s a two way street. I agree that treating people fairly as a manager gets more loyalty, innovation and better results.
I concur with Susan’s views. In my opinion, leaders need to be humble and not autocratic in approach to meet business goals. There has to be a consistent and predictable behavior.
Leaders must not hesitate to give credit to people who have sincerely worked hard for it. Taking someone else’s credit is uncalled for and will not work in the long run. Today’s business environment calls for collaborative approach rather than individualistic approach.
I do not know enough of Steve Jobs to be able to comment. I remember there were similar comments on Issac Newton saying that he made use of others and that he himself was not a genius.
The article gives an impression that Susan has felt hurt by some action of Steve and therefore this biased opinion. If no one else has expressed anything adverse against Steve, I would read Susan’s view with a lot of suspicion. I have read Jim Collins ‘Good to Great’ and have a fair idea of the kind of leader that he espouses. We can either ask him to study about Steve and write or wait for a few years to see if he has left an organization that can sustain its greatness.
I read the book too. It has many facets of Job’s character. What is mentioned in this article is perhaps the outcome of a turbulent childhood. This book mentions that as a child he felt unwanted since often his playmates would tell him that his mom and dad did not want him. Now put yourself in his shoes and look at the world growing up. You are bound to have a diabolic cynical syndrome.
Sorry I disagree. And I’m in HR!!! It is naive to assume that all people like Steve Jobs that in many ways revolutionize high tech are “great leaders” and fit the mold. I don’t expect it anymore. I would have loved to work under him just to try to grasp 1/100th of what he knew.
I have worked for great leaders that led their companies into bankruptcy and never made a dent in anything innovative. If I had my choice, I would prefer Steve Jobs. (I hear loud gasping in the background).
I think the author of the article has to define the terms they use to enable a meaningful discussion. Are leaders great because they treat people well, or great because they achieve things? Ideally, they will do both.
Churchill was another who probably suffered from what we might today call Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Anyone reading about his childhood would recognize the potential for that and anyone knowing how he behaved would recognize the symptoms. People tolerated his appalling behavior because his passion, conviction and enormous drive to win (all fuelled by his narcissistic defences) led him to stand out at a time when these things were demanded by the objective reality of the context in which he was leading.
He came to embody his cause (as did Jobs - and Hitler) because the opportunity to play out his grandiose fantasies were reflected back at him by objective reality and reinforced his lack of psychological boundaries, which people in those circumstances responded to (cults, anyone?)
For Jobs and Churchill, it ended well (although of course the British public recognized Churchill was not fit to lead them in peacetime - he probably would have invaded the Soviet Union given the chance).
For Hitler, not so good. Only because his grandiosity and lack of boundaries were fuelling a drive that objective reality did not accommodate. Much as Churchill would be seen differently if the US had let him lead them into a war with Stalin.
Do the ends justify the means? I’m glad we had Churchill. Not so sure Apple’s products are justification for the manipulation and abuse of human beings, personally.
Ok. A different point of view. I think the writer has done fair justice to express her personal views. Looking in a broader perspective for Steve Jobs in general, I think this is unfair.
Steve must have had the bads shared, though with the minor exception of adding the positive to relate in this article, the writer is trying to paint a wrong image. I would love to see the positive and compare both.
Steve has done something, which I have not seen anyone in the world do. Created a company… Got fired… Got re-hired when the company was getting bankrupt, and then turned around the company to make it a world leader. I am not talking about the money and success though to ensure that he showed his value to an extent which is admirable.
Interesting personal opinion, though not a very vital insight.
I struggled with writing this blog for two months, asking myself, can I love the products but not the producer? Are they inextricably linked? I finally answered the question according to what we aspire in terms of the next generation - for our leaders and our children. I believe that we must be consistent in our application of values and this gets lost midst the economic and competitive struggle.
BTW - I understand that Apple is an “anything goes” culture - where acceptable behavior is defined as anything that gets the work done. While I am sure that much of the resulting behavior from well meaning individuals is honorable - inevitably, people will lose their way. Organizations need that guardrails in terms of cultural norms and behavioral policies to ensure that the organization can sustain and thrive over time.