
Steve Jobs: A Genius, Yes; A Role Model for the Rest of Us, No Way - Firebrand
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-a-genius-yes-a-role-model-for-the-rest-of-us-no-way/
======
pg
There's not much to this. The only specific evidence he offers about Jobs's
character is "stiffing early Apple employees out of stock options when the
company first went public." Which (a) is an inaccurate description, because
options were not so much the norm in the 1970s as they are now, and (b) may
not have been, and in fact probably wasn't, even his decision.

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."

~~~
vailripper
The 60 minutes interview gave an anecdote where employees with options were
giving some of their own options out to other founding employees without after
they went public. When one of the first employees, and a close friend of jobs
asked for some options, another founding employee told Jobs that they should
help him out, and offered to give out some options if Jobs would match him.
Jobs declined, and never gave out any of his options.

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.

~~~
pg
I'm perfectly willing to believe Steve Jobs had a mean streak or whatever, but
you can't call it evil when someone refuses to do something no one else does
either. Steve Wozniak giving away some of his stock to other Apple employees
at the time of the IPO is the only instance I know of that happening. What
this story shows is that Wozniak is a saint, not that Jobs is evil.

~~~
dolphenstein
The article isn't making an argument that he is evil. The argument is that he
shouldn't necessarily be put on a pedestal as a person to model your behavour
on.

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".

~~~
AJ007
If Steve Jobs isn't a role model, then who is?

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.

~~~
definitions
I'd define a role model as someone who helps the world in a repeatable way,
i.e. if a lot of people were like the person, the world would be significantly
improved.

I think the article, whether successfully or not, tries to show a definition
more like that, no "perfection" involved.

~~~
gujk
A role model is someone who is a model for a role the follower wants to fill.
The world doesn't really enter into it, unless the follower is looking to make
the world better, as opposed to looking to become fabulously wealthy or
inwardly peaceful or remembered for generations or experienced in everything
or privy to a secret no one else would know or one of many other possible life
goals.

------
afterburner
Was Steve Jobs a genius? Is this granted? I feel like he was a great salesman,
and knew how to identify and manipulate smart people in order to attain a goal
(with the intention of cashing in on it himself). He also had a strong vision
of what he wanted, was willing to be bullheaded about it, and managed to
accumulate the credibility from early successes to keep people working on
_his_ vision and not deviating (although I feel like often _his_ vision
happens to be something he liked that someone else came up with, but the
origin of the idea is not the point here). His cultural interests probably
made it easier for some people to think he had some special insight.

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.

~~~
danilocampos
Ignoring the silly con man remark,

"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?"

~~~
zerostar07
While i find Apple products really well made, they have only given us minor
technical innovations (unibody construction, 3d desktop graphics, sensible
touch-based apps, etc?). In fact, you could remove apple products from the
world, and we wouldn't be missing anything essential technology-wise. Yes they
did match the technologies right to make amazingly desirable products, just
like expensive cars match technologies without introducing major innovations.

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?"

~~~
specialist
Unibody minor? Please. I'm on my 3rd MBP. I destroyed my 4 yr old model (last
before unibody). The latest is model is wicked tough. I also have recent Dell
and HP laptops. Pieces of shit. No comparison.

~~~
tallanvor
I've never understood how people manage to mess up cases so badly - especially
other (supposedly) technical people. I have never replaced a computer because
of physical failure. --Even my first laptop, which lasted me 5 years, was
replaced because I was moving overseas and didn't want to have to worry about
paying higher prices for a laptop in the UK.

~~~
dagw
People expect different things from their hardware. Some people are super
careful with their kit. Always keep it in a special case when not using it,
always transport it in a padded bag, always put it down very carefully, never
but anything on top of it etc. Others simply chuck their phone or laptop
unprotected into whatever bag they happen to have handy and set off.

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.

------
DanielBMarkham
1) It's too soon. Jobs had a great impact on the tech community. Give it a few
months at least.

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.

------
spinchange
F. Scott Fitzgerald said the test of a great intellect is the ability to hold
two opposed ideas in one's mind at the same time and still retain the ability
to function.

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.

~~~
kitsune_
I think this quote is hogwash, because having two opposed ideas in one's mind
is a core functionality of the human mind. Everybody does it.

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"

------
ethank
This article reads as if its from someone who has never worked for someone
like Steve Jobs. I have once, and I worked with another for a long time.

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.

~~~
pagekalisedown
Everyone SHOULD be concerned that a lot of Jobs wannabes will come out of all
this idolatry.

Instead of merely working for incompetents, our managers will also be dicks.

~~~
badclient
Most people who seem to think there will be a lot of DICK Jobs wannabes are
people focusing on Jobs' being a dick.

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.

------
runjake
Having gotten a significant way through the Steve Jobs book, I'm fairly
certain he would agree with the article's title.

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.

~~~
spinchange
I can only assume those objecting to this article and responding to it as an
attack, haven't really looked at the book or watched the Isaacson interview
yet.

------
fleitz
Being a leader sometimes means pissing people off. If you don't like your
boss: quit.

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...](http://www.slideshare.net/guesta3e206/colin-powells-leadership-
presentation)

~~~
j_baker
I don't see your point. I absolutely agree that sometimes you have to piss
people off to be the boss. But wouldn't you agree that this is offset by the
number of times you have to empathize with people and be their friend? After
all, a _complete_ asshole gets neither respect nor friendship. And a lot of
the people who work for the asshole boss will probably take your advice and
quit. What good is a boss without workers?

 _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.

~~~
badclient
_After all, a complete asshole gets neither respect nor friendship._

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.

------
jonmc12
The article points out a weakness in the author's philosophy of management,
not the weakness in Jobs as a manager. The notion of 'personality disorder'
seems largely out of context for someone of the mindset change the world.

'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.

------
meric
"By the time Jobs did have surgery, nine months after being diagnosed, the
pancreatic cancer had spread through his tissues and was largely unstoppable.
He died soon after."

6 - 7 years is hardly "soon".

~~~
gujk
It is not immediate, but compared to the average person with a matching health
profile, it is soon.

~~~
cubicle67
compared to the average person with matching cancer, it's a hell of a long
time

------
teyc
You can only imitate a master, but by doing so, one will never become one.

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.

------
jad
I think it's always questionable to approach people as if their personality
traits can be selected a la carte, as if there's no interdependence between
them.

"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.

------
rokhayakebe
I don't mind arrogant co-workers so long as they know their shit better than
anyone else in the building.

------
pbreit
The article pretty much admits that the "new Jobs" (ie, the one most know)
could be an excellent role model. Why is it so hung up on actions from 20 or
30 years ago?

------
sharmajai
A very beautiful and probably very correct interpretation of Jobs' management
approach was given by 'alexqgb' in a not so old thread here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3078669>

_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.

------
tmh88j
I have yet to read Steve's bio, however, based on the information that I have
seen over the years from both large scale and rumor based media, I can say
with confidence that he was a marketing wizard.

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.

------
chunky1994
I don't see the point of this article, even if all the claims are true, (and
like PG said they may not be) and Jobs was really a bad man in his personal
life, why bring it up? I see only harm in doing so, because people who've
already looked up to him as a role model, will continue to do so (I'm
presuming it takes more than an article to stop him from being one) and this
article only gives them means to be more like Jobs, except that they'll only
emulate his bad qualities because it's _easier_ , much easier than emulating
his sense of design or for that matter, any aspect of his genius. So if there
really is a point, can anyone direct me to it?

------
wanorris
Amidst the various hagiographies and anti-hagiographies circulating, I can't
help wishing someone could pull it all together into a cohesive whole and act
as Speaker for the Dead.

Does anyone know if the new biography attempts this?

~~~
vailripper
Isaascson had 40 some-odd interviews with Jobs, and none of it was censored by
Jobs apparently, so the biography ought to give a good picture of the real
jobs.

From the 60 minutes interview with Issaacson, it seems like a fairly honest
appraisal of Jobs.

------
crag
Any person with so much of the spotlight on them is gonna go off the farm a
ways. I won't even get into the eccentries of Hollywood celebs so lets just
focus on "our" tech world.

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?

------
scottschulthess
This whole article seems based entirely on conjecture

------
badclient
Speak for yourself.

------
michaelochurch
I'm glad this was written, in a way, although I think he's a bit too hard on
Steve Jobs. From everything I've heard about the guy, he was a totally
different man at Pixar.

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.

------
010100101
There's a lot to this.

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.

------
010100101
As long as you're "doing what everyone else does" you're ok. lol. Great
thinking.

------
jhuni
Steve Jobs apparently wanted to destroy Android and for at least that reason,
like Stallman, I am glad he is gone, so that he cannot do any more damage to
computing.

