Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Harvard Business Review blogger: Steve Jobs fails as a manager

Steve Jobs is frequently held out as the model of a tech industry CEO, but a Harvard Business Review blogger says that his style of management represents just about everything that a CEO shouldn't do.

In his blog, William C. Taylor, a best-selling business author, adjunct lecturer at Babson College, and former associate editor of Harvard Business Review, first gives Jobs his due, and says this:

There's no doubt that the Apple CEO will go down as one of the most creative, visionary, and high-impact leaders of his generation --- or any generation. How many corporate executives can make a legitimate claim to have reshaped not just one industry but four: computing (the Mac), music (the iPod), mobile communications (the iPhone), and movies (Pixar). And how many CEOs can make the legitimate claim that they achieved their wealth and power by making tens of millions of people so unbelievably happy that they worship the company and its products with near-religious devotion?

That being said, he goes on to say that

in terms of his approach to leadership, Jobs represents the face of business --- well, if not at its worst, then certainly not as something worth emulating...Jobs, for all of his virtues, clings to the Great Man Theory of Leadership --- a CEO-centric model of executive power that is outmoded, unsustainable, and, for most of us mere mortals, ineffective in a world of non-stop change.

Taylor cites Jobs' arrogance and top-down approach as unworkable, and something no CEO should emulate. As proof, he brings up an infamous example cited by a Wired cover story last year. The writer says that Jobs regularly parks his Mercedes in a handicapped space in Apple's crowded parking lot, sometimes taking up two spaces. The writer of the Wired piece notes:

Jobs' fabled attitude toward parking reflects his approach to business: For him, the regular rules do not apply.

Taylor adds that for Jobs

That means shrouding his company in secrecy; treating his employees to tyrannical outbursts; and refusing basic accommodations that would make beautifully designed products more customer-friendly.

Taylor sums up his attitude towards Jobs this way:

marvel at his products, applaud his feel for design, wonder at his capacity to cast such a large shadow over so many industries --- and, by all means, pray for his speedy recovery and long health.

But don't think you'll do better as a leader by acting more like Apple's leader.

What People Are Saying

You, sir, fail as a

You, sir, fail as a blogger... Who cares what Harvard Business Review has to say? The man inspires, innovates and makes money for his company.

Nothing like kicking a guy when he's down.

Last I heard, Steve Jobs was a brilliant guy who can be a pain to work for. There's nothing new here. What is striking however is your mean-spirited need to bash the guy just as he's trying to get his professional life back after some pretty heavy-duty personal problems.

You're not saying much about Jobs, but you are saying something about your own issues...

Basically, he is a

Basically, he is a narcissist. We had one of those as Director of IT. He gone and nobody misses him.

Regular rules do not apply . . . .

SO, who says rules need to apply. If every CEO followed the same rules, we'd have a mono-culture with no improvements, ever.

I may not like the way Jobs works, but he has been successful. He and Woz started by breaking rules of business by building computers that shouldn't have existed. He created the iPod the same way. He created lots of stuff the same way.

While I wish he'd lighten up on the "Control Freak" with the OS and hardware, he has been a visionary.

the real risk comes when he can no longer lead apple. There seems to be little room for training a replacement that can keep a new vision going.

It's the cult of personality. It all depends on how you use it.

Jobs

Mr. Jobs is the classic mixed bag. Without Mr.Bill Gates's infusion of big bucks back a few years ago, Apple would be history. Thus one might conclude that behind the scenes Apple is another subsidiary of.....INTEL (like Dell)! Guess what chip they at Apple buy? Without the infusion, Gates/Intel would have been very close to 100% of the market instead of their ~98% based on revenue. Thus even the Federal Gov would have been able to see the illegal monopoly status of INTEL, as have the folks in Europe.

Oh not again......

"Without Mr.Bill Gates' infusion of big bucks back a few years ago, Apple would be history."

Uh, no. When will you people learn to read? The money paid to Apple was to settle a lawsuit brought against MS. Not, as you apparently think, to save Apple. Try Google, it works wonders. Ah, but wait, you like FUD, and being confused, sorry I said anything........

Microsoft Saving Apple

I am sure many other companies would have been "saved" if they had been fairly paid for their technologies that Microsoft Used.

Apple has nothing to be ashamed of if the payment saved them since the money was rightfully theirs in the first place.

Reason for money =/= reason Apple still exists

Those are two different topics. The intent may not have been to "save Apple," but whether it actually had that effect or not... well, most people would disagree with you and say that it *did indeed* have the effect of saving Apple, at least from becoming a very small, niche company. Of course, no one knows for sure what would have happened.

For those that think Jobs can do no wrong, he obviously has, and many, many times. NeXT wasn't exactly a model of success.

Re Steve Jobs fails as a manager

So, this is the genius that the harvard b-school produces? Aha! No wonder, corporations in America are failing miserably.

Come now, guys,

Mr. Steve Jobs can do whatever he pleases as long as Apple is a very successful company.