
Steve Jobs' first boss: 'Very few companies would hire Steve, even today' - filvdg
http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_22884138/steve-jobs-first-boss-very-few-companies-would
======
untog
The only thing that worries me about bringing focus to stuff like this is that
people will walk away with the reverse impression- that if they're unhireable
it must mean that they're just like Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs could be many things. Inspired is one of them. An asshole is
another. Just because people think you're an asshole doesn't automatically
mean you're inspired.

~~~
pekk
I'm worried about your impression that if you don't like someone, they can't
do interesting things as Jobs did.

Who is actually "unhireable"? And even if they are, does that mean they cannot
accomplish anything? Are you in charge of deciding who will never amount to
anything?

~~~
untog
They could well do interesting things, as Jobs did- I'm not saying they can't.
I'm more trying to say that there is no guaranteed connection between the two,
in the same way that wearing black turtlenecks isn't going to make you any
more enlightened either.

~~~
pitchups
This reminds me of PG's essay about startups - where he says that all great
ideas look like really bad ideas in the beginning. Like black swans, the next
big thing, and the person to create the next big thing seem to share the trait
of not being easy to predict or spot.

~~~
yen223
Of course, bad ideas also look like bad ideas in the beginning.

~~~
raverbashing
Humm I disagree

There's "obvious" bad ideas like trying to sell sand in the desert.

There's the bad (underwhelming) ideas, maybe that's the most common of them,
it's probably the 'trying to make a weird idea sellable'. Like 'french fries
are amazing but unhealthy so let's try to sell potatoes cut as fries, but
baked, with no salt'

There's also quirky ideas as bad ideas, which is the way most people go and
what PG probably meant. Not to mention sometimes your idea looks like the same
as a failed one already but the devil is in the details.

~~~
mikecane
How bad of an idea is it to sell a stupid rock to people?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock>

There are some days I must grudgingly agree with screenwriter William
Goldman's "Nobody knows anything."

If you're not more confused by life as you get older, you haven't been paying
enough attention.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Depends on your investment strategy. Fads are nearly impossible to predict. So
you have $100,000 to invest and this guy comes up to you with pet rocks.
Another guy with toilets that sing. Another guy with shoes that play music.

Who do you give the money to? Any of these guys?

Just because fads exist, doesn't mean bad ideas don't. Banking on the pet rock
was a huge gamble for someone and it somehow worked out. Fad toys must have 1
out of 100,000 success rate, if that.

------
kamaal
That's sort of straight obvious.

Basically because if somebody like Steve Jobs doesn't have a Steve Wozniak to
build things for him in the start he is more or less a arrogant egoistic
tantrum throwing hippie kind of a guy whom nobody would like to deal with.

You meet a genius co-founder like Steve Wozniak very very rarely.

Nearly every program manager is a lesser version of Steve Jobs, that is how
authority looks cool and glorified. Giving an impression that the manager is
automagically creating success out of thin air while a engineer somewhere
pushing 19 hr daily schedules to make it happen doesn't count or is
irrelevant.

Steve Jobs reminds of Peter Keating from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.

~~~
mikecane
>>>Steve Jobs reminds of Peter Keating from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.

Seriously? You think Hank Rearden developed Rearden Steel without all of the
efforts others had first made in steel? Dagny _inherited_ her damn railroad.
She didn't create it. Richard Halley didn't invent music. John Galt was
working in a damn auto factory. He didn't invent autos nor the idea of an
engine. Midas Mulligan was a goddammed banker. He didn't invent currency or
the idea of stored value.

------
dmk23
I do not understand why anyone would find this quote surprising, controversial
or even newsworthy.

Employees operate within the rules established by their employers - they have
a boss and are expected to be a "good solider" to support objectives of their
company / business unit... People like Steve Jobs are successful because of
their audacity to disregard the rules and make their own.

These are entirely different mindsets and skillsets. Employees are given
direction, entrepreneurs set the direction.

What I find a lot more interesting is that quite a few startup founders act
like employees rather than leaders - constantly asking (explicitly or
implicitly) for approval of others. Look around and see if you can recognize
people who care about the opinions of press/investors/advisors/peers more than
achieving product/market fit followed by revenue/profitability/growth.

~~~
keefe
You don't actually have to be that much of a soldier at most places and most
places today, imho, would hire steve jobs. I have a day job and my personal
ventures and the bottom line is if you do your job, nobody cares. I think the
vast majority of successful leaders also had a successful period working on
someone else's project beforehand.

------
Cardeck1
The sad, harsh reality is, no one would hire Steve Jobs today or almost no
one.Why?Because times have changed (In a bad way).We live in a world full of
arrogance, stupidity and ignorance.We no longer think how to change the world
but how to make a lot of money.

Steve Jobs was a non-technical guy.We have 1 million topics on HN bashing
these guys for 1 million reasons.Even on this one we have engineers talking
about the same thing over and over.

How about being realistic at least once. We do not give these people any
chance of working with us.Because we are so arrogant these days that we think
the world belong to us and only we (programmers/engineers) can change it.

We cannot find a Steve Jobs when we are not willing to risk at all.How many of
you helped a non-technical guy building a project without asking for a huge
amount of money or 100% equity?Probably not many.Most of the help consists of
telling the guy to find a cofounder or to quit the project.Not one
programmer/engineer would say "hey you know what, you're crazy but I'll help
you" or any other similar line.

The truth is we do not own the world and we are not all-knowing. We can be
all-star programmers and yet have crap ideas.Nothing is set in stone.Someone
out there is always better than you.And history shows us that small things
count. Unbelievable things come from unexpected places.

I am not saying that every non-technical guy is a Steve Jobs because I had my
own failures with these guys and yes, it's incredibly frustrating.But those
were bad selections.A risk I was willing to take.I helped a non-technical guy
with a startup 4 years ago.He had a weird idea and he asked me to help him in
exchange for a fixed sum of 350K. He came to me with a damn paper and pen to
talk about his idea. He had no money to hire a programmer only an ambition
that could move mountains.And after 6 months I received the money in my
account...the startup was a success...and that's when I changed my mentality.

So in conclusion, if we want to see a Steve Jobs, we have to take
risks.Otherwise let's continue flipping the coin and wait for it.

~~~
talmand
I don't think the world is that much different today than it was yesterday.
You perspective on it may be different and will continue to evolve over time,
but for the most part the world we live in continues much the same as it
always has. The problems you speak of is nothing new. Just look on the history
of a different industry and you're likely to find much the same.

But, during the early years Jobs was not selling his own crazy ideas, he was
selling Woz's. Plus I wouldn't say that Jobs was a non-technical guy as he
clearly knew tech, he just accepted his place in that field.

The thing I don't get about your comment is that we see people risking things
on non-technical people's ideas every day, so I don't understand your point.

~~~
Cardeck1
I have to disagree here.Even though my perspective has changed, times have
changed too.How?Look around.If you do not see it than I will stop here.

Steve Jobs was a non-technical guy.That's why there were so many debates about
tech and non tech guys during these years.He acquired knowledge over time
through various sources.He had everything on a plate.And you can be a complete
outsider in a company.When you spend so much time in your industry, in your
environment, you learn.But you couldn't say he was a programmer or engineer.

Saying that people are risking things on non-tech people's ideas every day is
like saying people are driving a car every day.Of course they are.In this
world there is a little bit of everything.Rich people, poor people, low jobs,
high jobs etc. We are talking about the majority or current situation. And for
the moment the situation is just how I described it.

If you think it is not true, post a project on HN as a non-technical guy and
ask for someone to help you build your project.I am curious how many would
help you.

That is just my personal opinion based on my observations and experiences.

~~~
talmand
If you do not see that your third paragraph contradicts your first then I
cannot help you.

Jobs was involved in numerous projects creating highly popular technical
products in several different roles. Now did he dig in to create the circuit
boards and code the programs himself? No, he did not. But that's like saying a
team lead is not a technical person because he doesn't code himself. To help
create technical products from the ground up there has to be some level
technical knowledge involved. Maybe your standard of what constitutes
technical knowledge is higher than mine or maybe we just think of being
technical as different things.

As I said before, your third paragraph agrees with my point. What you are
complaining about has been around for quite a while and will most likely will
exist for a time to come.

Someone with no technical knowledge asking for help on a project and not
getting it does not necessarily lead to your conclusion on the community in
general. One could say the same if you have a crazy idea for a new type of
house, when you've never built a house before, and no one in the construction
industry steps forward to build your house on spec for no money down. That's
simply how the world works and has always worked. What you want is the
exception to be the rule.

But then again, I'm sure the open source world has several examples of what
you say doesn't happen.

~~~
Cardeck1
I don't see the contradiction but my point is, if we want to see more steves
we should improve the relationship between us and them even if we have the
hard part of the startup.Which is almost always the case.

But hey, if you choose to be a programmer, you should do it because you really
like it not because you make a lot of money. I can work 30h non stop on a
project I like even if it's not mine, because I really like to build projects.

I don't want the exception to be the rule.It would be impossible after
all.What I want is tech guys to risk more when it comes to non-technical
people.

Btw, when you are smart and very talented you don't really need to get that
technical.I already wrote about a non-technical guy I've worked with which had
no technical background and no experience with startups that was able to build
a product from his mind. I was shocked.I mean he didn't even know how to
design it in photoshop.He was able to guide us through the building process
almost perfectly.Now, of course he was reading a lot about everything but
besides that he had no real technical background.

Should I say that guy was technical or non-technical?We probably see things
differently.

We should return to our topic subject because we are entering the eternal
debate and we will just ruin the topic.

~~~
talmand
I agree since you keep contradicting yourself.

------
davidroberts
I'm not sure Steve Jobs would be such a great employee anyway. He was born to
lead, not follow. To innovate, not bend himself to someone else's vision.
Invest in him? Yes. Hire him? Hmmmmm. Maybe not.

~~~
phaus
A grown man that throws tantrums, belittles subordinates, and never admits
when his company has made a mistake is not what I would call a born leader.

~~~
chongli
That's exactly what I'd call a born leader. These types of people do not show
any weakness and refuse to compromise on their vision.

~~~
phaus
All three of the attributes I listed are weaknesses. Born leaders don't often
lose their temper in front of subordinates.

You should read "How to Make Friends and Influence People" It contains quite a
few examples of what true leadership is.

~~~
chongli
>All three of the attributes I listed are weaknesses.

According to whom?

>"How to Make Friends and Influence People"

Leadership isn't about making friends; it's about getting people to obey.
Hitler, Stalin and Steve Jobs all knew this well.

~~~
phaus
>According to whom? Anyone with a brain. Steve Jobs wasn't successful because
he found it appropriate to act like a 2 year old in a business environment. He
was successful in spite of it.

>Leadership isn't about making friend; It's about getting people to obey.

I agree that leadership isn't about making friends, but the other half of the
book's title is "and Influencing People," which is about getting people to do
what you want them to, which is exactly what you said leadership is about.

Hitler and Stalin were not good leaders. Sure, you can force people to do
things if your commands are backed up by the promise of torture and death, but
that's not leadership by any stretch of the imagination.

You can be successful for a number of reasons. Most good leaders are
successful, but success alone isn't an indicator of leadership ability. Good
leaders are far too rare for every successful organization to have one.

~~~
chongli
>Hitler and Stalin were not good leaders. Sure, you can force people to do
things if your commands are backed up by the promise of torture and death, but
that's not leadership by any stretch of the imagination.

Hitler and Stalin weren't born with the ability to have anyone tortured or
killed. They didn't inherit generals and secret police under their command.
These power structures they built themselves over the course of their
respective political careers. Their ability to rally people to their
respective causes was formidable.

For another example of belligerence and downright nastiness as a leadership
quality: look no further than the military. Drill Instructors are legendary
for the intimidating and degrading treatment of their subordinates and yet I
find it very hard to argue with the results. By and large, they're able to
produce unshakably loyal soldiers.

~~~
phaus
I'm a 3rd generation Soldier that was in the Army for a decade, what you are
describing is called toxic leadership, and it destroys organizations. Slowly,
the military is starting to admit that its ineffective when your subordinates
aren't a bunch of mouth breathing illiterates.

Also, most Soldiers are loyal because most people who aren't already patriotic
wouldn't have much of a reason to go through all the bullshit. Anyone who
thinks that you can get brainwashed by 9 weeks of mild exercise and ass-
chewings delivered by a group of regular people who are paid to pretend that
they are mad at you must have had a pretty easy life. Basic training is the
codecademy of military discipline.

~~~
chongli
>I'm a 3rd generation Soldier that was in the Army for a decade, what you are
describing is called toxic leadership, and it destroys organizations. Slowly,
the military is starting to admit that its ineffective when your subordinates
aren't a bunch of mouth breathing illiterates.

Totally different situation. You're talking about maintaining high morale with
career soldiers. I'm talking about rousing up a bunch of conscripts and
packing them off to war. Historically, these types of people made up the bulk
of the armies and didn't live long enough to cause trouble for the
organization.

------
Hitchhiker
Early stage investing provably cannot be as rational as most try and make it
to be. When a group tips and looks like a good score is about to emerge.. the
score-keepers have to increment the score ( i.e. give investment ) as that is
about the only function they serve.

" Finally, I'd like to once again talk about investment management. That is a
funny business because on a net basis, the whole investment management
business together gives no value added to all buyers combined. That's the way
it has to work. " - Charlie Munger

When people rejected or passed on .. at that point in time .. it would have
been entirely rational to do so. I am not certain even Mr.Jobs knew how time
would turn.

------
sgloutnikov
I will never forget. The day Jobs died, Al Alcorn was giving a talk at San
Jose State University for my Computer History course. He took about 15-20
minutes before the talk and shared many inside stories from the Atari days
about Jobs. Truly remarkable stuff. As he put it, "I was the only boss he ever
had". I am sad that his stories got cut out from the recorded lecture, maybe
because he said a lot of colorful things :)

Here is a short post talk interview:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcXGIQuxAg>

And, the talk itself (5th one in the list), plus many other interesting ones
from computing legends if anyone wants to check them out:
[http://www.sjsu.edu/at/atn/webcasting/archives/fall_2011/his...](http://www.sjsu.edu/at/atn/webcasting/archives/fall_2011/hist/Computing/)

------
JumpCrisscross
" _Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with
Jobs if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest
$50,000 in Apple during its formative stages._ "

$50 000 in 1976, the year Apple was founded, had the purchasing power of over
$200 000 today. Without the benefit of hindsight he probably made a sensible,
if unlucky, decision.

~~~
Lerc
He is 70 now, Probably hasn't gone hungry in that time and he has taken on a
decent number of fascinating projects in his lifetime.

Cash only makes a difference in the event of a tie-break, and I think he's
ahead of most.

~~~
stuffihavemade
Plus, who's to say he wouldn't have cashed out at some point during the
downward spiral in the 90's?

------
rmrfrmrf
It's really insulting to reduce a human being to some kind of archetype
incapable of adapting to a situation. Steve was a bright guy -- I'm sure that
if he ever found himself in a position where he needed to apply as an employee
of a company, he would know how to 'play the game' and adapt to the situation.

Also, I'm sick of hearing people downplay Jobs' role in Apple and giving Woz
all of the credit (although I'm not surprised; I'm assuming that many
introverted code monkeys here aspire to be the unsung hero co-founder of a
company).

It's the same shit I hear about how the Beatles would be nothing without
George Martin or LSD. It should go without saying that these revolutionary
things (i.e. Apple and the Beatles) are products of both serendipitous events
AND the surrounding cultural context. Yes, if you remove one piece of the
puzzle, OF COURSE the end-result will be different. But what makes it a moot
point is that the converse is also true -- George Martin would be nothing
without the Beatles, and Woz would be completely unheard of if it weren't for
Steve Jobs.

~~~
talmand
I agree except for your last comment where you do the very thing you complain
others are doing with Jobs. You downplayed Woz's contributions by implying
that he would have done nothing exceptional unless Jobs was there to hold his
hand. Except that Woz is credited with developing the Apple I by himself but I
suppose he would have just tossed the thing in the bin if not for Jobs.

------
weisser
"Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with Jobs
if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest $50,000
in Apple during its formative stages. Had he seized that opportunity, Bushnell
would have owned one-third of Apple, which is now worth about $425 billion --
more than any other company in the world."

Surprised Jobs would have offered so much of Apple, even in the formative
stages, for $50k (which surely translates to much more money than $50k is
today). It is interesting to consider how that would have changed the
control/direction of Apple.

~~~
Swannie
But this is wrong. The $50k would have gone through many dilutions. He may
have owned 1/3 of Apple. There is no way that today he would have 1/3rd. That
said, it does raise the question: if he had gone in to Apple, would Jobs have
ever left and started NeXT and Pixar???

------
Alex_MJ
Optimal Founder/CEO != Optimal Employee

------
sGrabber
You might be the best as an individual but if you are not a team player, the
probability of succeeding is minimal. Team members complement each other to
make successful products/companies or any relationship

------
mathogre
No one would hire him today. Companies are risk averse, given the current
economic/political climate. If you can't produce and "fit in", don't bother
submitting your resumé.

~~~
wyclif
It's possible that nobody would hire an unknown Steve Jobs now, but it really
doesn't matter. Jobs wasn't an employee, he was a founder. Founders don't have
to concern themselves with getting hired.

~~~
mikecane
>>>Founders don't have to concern themselves with getting hired.

But they still have to do things like pay rent, buy food, buy clothes, buy
tech. Those things take money. And money is usually gotten from a job. The
point is, Jobs wouldn't have even been able to get a job to survive first.
That old guy sweeping floors in McDonald's today? Did you ever stop to think
what led him there? (For the Rand worshipers out there, how was Galt employed
at Taggart Transcontinental?)

~~~
wyclif
That's a nice way to strawman what I said, but I was talking about hiring, not
buying stuff, income, or money. Here's the thing: Steve Jobs did not have to
get hired, in the employee sense, because he founded his own company.

~~~
talmand
I don't see it necessarily as a strawman since it is essentially true, as he
did have jobs leading up to Apple. Keep in mind that he founded his company
with funding, it's not as if he founded the company and was instantly making
enough money to survive with.

One could make the argument that even a founder is "hired" when he requires
somebody else's money to make it happen.

------
Vinnix
As much as I appreciate the opinion, I just don't think it is valid. Outliers
shouldn't reflect everyone...

------
mikecane
NewsFlash: The older Steve Jobs would not have hired the younger Steve Jobs
today.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
We are all good at recognising our younger selves.

We might not _like_ them, but we can recognise them

~~~
mikecane
Yes. And our older selves are more likely to "contain" our younger selves
because we know how bad we once were.

------
michaelochurch
The problem is that no one would hire Steve Jobs _as a subordinate_ , but he
was an evident great hire for a decision-making role, even then. People like
him usually get filtered out before they get high enough to use their talents,
though. In fact, Jobs is the opposite of what corporations promote, which
explains a lot about them.

~~~
pjungwir
Sort of OT:

Michael, have you read Managing the Professional Service Firm by David
Maister? He writes powerfully about economics, incentives, and culture as they
relate to management. I think his book would give you a lot to think about,
and you'd find plenty both to learn and to argue against. His focus is a
"firm" structured on the partner/associate model. I'd love to see more people
thinking about and experimenting with that model for software developers. I
think it offers many similarities to what you admire about Github and Valve.
And perhaps it is a model where Steve Jobs could find a place.

~~~
michaelochurch
I haven't read it.

I don't like the partner/associate model as it works in law firms, because (at
least in 2013) it becomes a two-class system as toxic as the tenured/not
distinction in academia.

Also, law firm bonuses aren't direct profit-sharing. What I proposed in my
recent essay ( [http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-
macle...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-
macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/) ) is real,
motivationally significant profit-sharing extended to all employees. In
biglaw, they are hosed if they work hard for 7 years and don't make partner;
in VC-istan, engineers in a 50-person company get ~0.04% equity instead of the
~0.45% profit sharing they'd get under my system.

The idea that I have in mind is one where profit sharing's open to all
employees and substantial but very few people end up holding equity, because
the thing's not built to be sold and equity is only for people expected to be
long-term (10+ years) contributors.

------
michaell2
IMHO it's strange that we are discussing hiring Mr reality distortion field
for a technical position here. If he were reincarnated and looking for a job
now, he would probably go into sales. What do they care more about in sales,
team playing or closing contracts for new leads? Then there is the
"motivational speaking", another fruitful and remunerative area of endeavor
for this sort of people :)

~~~
talmand
I would have said he was in sales from the beginning and he focused on tech,
of which he had a background.

------
kami8845
In other news: Grey-haired dude from long-ago bigs himself up for hiring
someone who is seen as a bad employee. "I was smarter back then than all y'all
are today." Also missed the chance to buy 33% of Apple for 5k, with Apple now
being valued at 425 billion USD.

