

Man and superman - lrm242
http://www.cdixon.org/?p=1391

======
pmichaud
His superman reference to Nietzsche is totally wrong. Overmen weren't supposed
to be super-duper great, productive people. He was making a really complex
argument about human beings shedding their animal nature and antiquated
morality to ascend into a new kind of intelligent being.

He doesn't make any kind of argument anyway -- pointing out that some leaders
of companies are more effective than others does nothing to support the
argument that complex forces are not at work.

~~~
petewarden
I was hoping for more meat in the argument too, the plural of anecdote is not
data. If Steve was the sole factor behind Apple's success, then why didn't
Next take over the world too?

I'd be a lot more interested in the mechanics of how 'great men' make a
difference. I'd argue in Apple's case Steve's biggest influence was building a
culture fanatical about the customer's experience, replicating versions of
himself across the company. He's also been amazingly hands-on about the
details of the business.

Most fans of the great man theory in business seem to be looking for a quick
fix, a savior they can recruit. That leads to hiring apparent visionaries who
spend too much time thinking deep thoughts about strategy, and not enough on
the operational and personnel nuts-and-bolts of the company.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
_"why didn't Next take over the world"_

You could make a strong argument they did. Next and Apple is often cited as a
case where the bought company took over the buyer.

Netscape and Collabra is another, less successful, and recently modish
example.

(not a fan of the great man theory in general though)

~~~
camccann
_You could make a strong argument they did. Next and Apple is often cited as a
case where the bought company took over the buyer._

The Disney/Pixar deal might count as well. After a falling-out between the
companies due in large part to Disney wanting more creative control, Disney
eventually caved and "bought" Pixar in an all-stock deal, with top people from
Pixar being put in charge of Disney's animation division and the majority
shareholder of Pixar becoming by far the largest single Disney shareholder--
more than the next five largest combined, if memory serves me.

(Extra credit: Guess who the aforementioned shareholder is.)

------
camccann
Alternative theory: Many people of the type he talks about 1) were lucky to be
in the right place at the right time, 2) had strong, effective organizations
working for them, 3) were smart and competent enough to make effective use of
#1 and #2, 4) stepped down while they were near or at their peak.

Most people, no matter how great, are not going to have #1 and getting #2 is
difficult and unreliable.

Too much focus on the traits and actions of individuals is probably a result
of the general cognitive bias to cast events in terms of structured narratives
with well-defined causes and effects.

------
cracki
It's "Übermenschen", with sch, not ch.

As a German, I'm offended. They chose to use the word but they failed to make
sure they got it right.

on the content: interesting observation.

------
scotty79
It just shows how dumb are large organizations. Single human being doing
educated guesses can be smarter than corporate entity.

Great leaders perceived efficiency is effect of two factors. One, they manage
to actually strongly influence what happens in their organizations. And two,
they are not dumb.

At least one of these just must be false for Steve Ballmer.

