

Why Steve Jobs Couldn’t Find a Job Today - fiesycal
http://blogs.forbes.com/adamhartung/2011/02/18/why-steve-jobs-couldnt-find-a-job/

======
amirmc
A glaring point that the article seems to forget is that Bezos, Jobs, et. al.,
are _founder_ CEOs. Not one of the individuals mentioned was a hire. I think
that's an important distinction, especially with respect to the author's
points on creativity.

 _"... remember that when Jobs returned to Apple in 1996, ... Let’s just say
he didn’t have the benefit of the doubt. What he did have: the founder’s
courage to innovate despite the doubters"_

from: <http://bhorowitz.com/2010/04/28/why-we-prefer-founding-ceos/>

Edit to add quote

~~~
hammock
I think that's the point of the article- companies aren't hiring people who
want to rock the boat, you have to find a way to do it yourself.

~~~
nknight
As a general rule, companies have never hired people who want to rock the
boat. The point is that the article missed that point. Nothing is different
about "today" vs. any time in the past.

~~~
Hyena
That's the article's point: for the last decade companies have been talking up
creativity and innovation and hiring like it was 1959.

------
acslater00
If Steve Jobs applied for your job by submitting his resume and waiting for
you to invite him in for an interview, he literally wouldn't be Steve Jobs in
any meaningful way. He would just be a guy named Steve who didn't finish
college and seems to maybe want a job. So the whole premise is nonsense.

The better question is, "if Steve Jobs knocked on your door at 2am and jumped
into a long speech about how your industry is begging to be disrupted, and how
he is simply so manically focused on creating an incredible product in this
space that he can't sleep and he'd probably work for free if that's what it
came to" would you hire him?

I think most hiring managers would take a chance on that guy.

~~~
bartonfink
Actually, I'd probably threaten to call the cops. Passion or not, 2 am isn't
the best time to make unannounced house calls.

~~~
marshray
No, Jobs would have co-opted the cops and they would have raided _you_.

[http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-
computer...](http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers)

------
flocial
This title twists the quote. It's asking the reader a rhetorical question
whether they would hire Steve Jobs but immediately lists Bezos and other
innovative founders. I don't think Steve could get a decent job even when he
was young nor did he seek one.

~~~
ghiculescu
Exactly. The answer to their question is as much "no" now as it was 20 years
ago.

------
aridiculous
It's really quite simple, and in a sense I don't think big companies are
behaving irrationally:

It's really hard to judge the potential of odd, creative people. There's a
million people running around who talk like Steve Jobs did decades ago. Think
about all the idea-people and 'mavens' you know.

Granted, I think the entire hiring system isn't even close to optimized and
could be greatly improved.

~~~
jonnathanson
True. I think it's more of a two-way street than the article lets on.

Think back to all of the most quirky, creative, interesting, boat-rocking
people you've worked with or met. It's not a universal rule that these folks
aren't very good at the "people" side of the equation...but a lot of them
aren't. Furthermore, a lot of them have a marked distaste for toeing the party
line. They derive more energy from challening assumptions than from accepting
them. Or from reinventing the wheel, instead of using the wheel they've got on
hand. They get bored or disgruntled very quickly if they're not being
stimulated or challenged.

These traits might make for good startup founders, but they don't often
correlate with corporate success. Especially at large, traditional, non-tech
corporations. In such companies, politics rules the day. Your skill as a
politician -- your ability to navigate the waters, network with the right
people, kiss the right ass, and sell internally -- is what gets you ahead.
Your inability to do so will prevent you from climbing as quickly, or as far,
as the savvier operators.

Companies say they want more creative leaders, but all incentives are set up
to reward politicians. At the same time, a lot of "creative" folks opt out of
the game in the first place -- either through ineptitude at it, or through an
avowed distaste for it. It's unfortunate, but it's true in many, many, many
cases.

If there's any grand, karmic justice in the whole equation, it's that -- in
theory, at least -- the more forward-thinking and "creative" companies will
win out in the marketplace. Those companies that choose to be ruled by
innovation, by results, and not by politics should outperform the companies
that choose not to recognize (or even to suppress) their innovative thinkers.
It's not as cut-and-dried as this, of course, but that's what those of us
disheartened by these articles should hope for in the long run.

~~~
pnathan
_Your skill as a politician -- your ability to navigate the waters, network
with the right people, kiss the right ass, and sell internally -- is what gets
you ahead._

This sounds like an ideal marketer skillset. Yes? No?

------
rockarage
A mondern day steve jobs would be a cofounder he wont spend his time looking
for one of these jobs the article mentions.

~~~
_delirium
I dunno, I'm not sure VCs would be too keen to fund someone with the
characteristics of the 1970s Jobs. Quasi-homeless, just returned from a
"spiritual enlightenment" trip to India and now dresses in traditional Indian
costume, experiments with LSD...

~~~
prawn
You can be a cofounder with all those attributes, regardless of VC. You could
also create something so compelling that VCs would overlook any concerns like
that when it got to that stage of needing further investment.

~~~
meric
It's not as easy for startups to create vertically integrated hardware devices
these days.

~~~
e1ven
The time was right for the Personal Computer revolution in 1977. In 1997, it
was the Internet revolution.

In 2007, it was the Social revolution.

There's always opportunity, you just need to find what is now worldchanging,
which would be difficult, expensive, or plain impossible before.

~~~
ssebro
And right now, I think we're going through the human revolution, where we use
applications to make humans be better, and do better, and everything is
centered around the human experience.

------
uladzislau
The question really translates to: why companies are not taking risks today?
The bigger risks are - the larger would be the profits from exploiting the
risks. Creativity and innovation are huge risks but you you need to take them
if you want to be successful today. "me too" strategy won't take you far.
Apple is the best example for this point. Remember Steve Jobs announcing "year
of copycats"?

~~~
aridiculous
One explanation could be that most people find that the pain of losing a set
amount of money is greater in magnitude than the joy of making that same
amount of money.

Also, it's simply political. When you have shareholders who all hold different
beliefs and levels of risk-aversion, things get messy.

------
knieveltech
"And it’s not clear America would benefit even if it tried maintaining these
lower-skilled jobs."

Myopic on many levels. A week in an industrial fabrication shop would change
the author's tune regarding skill levels required for modern manufacturing
jobs.

~~~
jbooth
He's not talking about that, he's talking about sewing buttons on things for 5
bucks a day.

------
daimyoyo
What I find ironic is that in order to work for Apple today, you need a
spotless academic record since gradeschool. I doubt very much that Apple would
hire a Reed College dropout today.

~~~
rdouble
That is not true. Apple is not like Google or Goldman Sachs. They do not ask
for your GPA or care where you went to school.

edit: hate to be down-vote curious, but I would be interested to hear if
someone has been rejected from Apple for having a poor GPA.

I've interviewed with Apple and nobody asked about my degree or GPA. It was
the most on-topic job interview I've ever had. No weird brainteasers or
annoying FizzBuzz questions. Just questions directly relevant to the position
I was interviewing for. I have a handful of friends who work there who never
finished college or have degrees in something irrelevant, like philosophy.
Guys like Mike Matas and Mike Lee did not have degrees. The head of iTunes did
not go to college at all.

~~~
orangecat
_Apple is not like Google or Goldman Sachs. They do not ask for your GPA or
care where you went to school._

By that definition, Google is not like Google.

~~~
rdouble
Has Google stopped asking for GPAs?

~~~
orangecat
There's a space for it on the application, but neither the recruiter nor
interviewers appeared to care about my formal education at all. I don't know
how much of a factor it plays in the decision process, but the idea that
Google only pays attention to candidates with CS degrees from top-tier
universities is false.

------
yuhong
_The problem starts with how Boards of Directors (and management teams) select
– incorrectly, it appears – our business leaders..._

And as it happens, recently there has been debate about successors to Steve
Jobs.

------
sid6376
It's funny how the points stated in this article will be so true for a
Microsoft hiring manager. No disrespect intended. Disclaimer: I was an MS
employee till last month.

