5 ms·

If doing the job of a founder/CEO were so easy, why do so many people fail at it? When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, it made terrible products. It had a marke

If doing the job of a founder/CEO were so easy, why do so many people fail at it? When Steve Jobs came back to Apple, it made terrible products. It had a market cap of $3 billion, hadn't had profits in years, and was six weeks from bankruptcy. During his tenure as CEO, Apple made consistently excellent products, and it entered the right new markets. Its market cap rose to $350 billion. It has since doubled that, and is now the largest and most profitable company in the world. The value that CEOs bring to their companies is exclusively in the decisions they make. That's why Jobs deserved to be paid well over 1000X a "regular" employee!

pmoriarty 9y ago
Was it really Steve Jobs or the people that worked for him that deserve the credit for Apple's success?
- maxharris 9y ago
  Who chose the people that worked for him? Or do you think that the management team at Apple also does nothing? Much of the board and many of the execs at Apple changed when they bought NeXT. So much so that many people at the time called it a "reverse acquisition." Jobs was great at finding the best talent. Jony Ive was at Apple long before the NeXT acquisition, and Jobs put him in the right position very, very rapidly. Would the average person have done the same thing? Would the average person have cared nearly so much about design?
- maxharris 9y ago
  Also, what about the decision to stop licensing the MacOS to cloners in 1997? A decision this big has to be made by the CEO. At the time, Apple was dying, and Jobs was the one that made that call. It was quite unpopular at the time. But it was also absolutely the right thing to do! You might find this hard to believe, but Gil Amelio (Apple's CEO before Jobs) floated the idea of splitting Apple into two disintegrated companies - "Apple Hard" and "Apple Soft." Can you guess how that would have turned out? (You can't build an iPod, an iPhone, an iPad or a Mac that way, because the entire point is to make the product better by integration.)
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    "A decision this big has to be made by the CEO." Or it could be made by the employees of the company as a whole, or their representatives. The currently popular hierarchical structure isn't the only or necessarily the right way to structure a company. Companies could be worker-owned and allow employees much greater participation in decision making. Anyway, even if one person's decisions are exceptionally consequential doesn't mean they have to be paid an exorbitant amount of money to do it. I'm sure plenty of other people would have taken a fraction of Jobs' salary to make the same decision. There's a cult of personality around Steve Jobs in SV, and I for one find it very hard to swallow.
    - maxharris 9y ago
      Or it could be made by the employees of the company as a whole, or their representatives. The currently popular hierarchical structure isn't the only or necessarily the right way to structure a company. Prove it. Why don't you found a company and show us?
      - pmoriarty 9y ago
        Because I find the business world to be incredibly boring. Founding a company would be just about the last thing I'd be interested in. Anyway, worker-owned and run businesses already exist. You don't need me to show you.
    - maxharris 9y ago
      I'm sure plenty of other people would have taken a fraction of Jobs' salary to make the same decision. There were literally thousands of armchair CEOs - mostly classic Mac cultists - that were writing about what Apple should do to avoid bankruptcy in 1996-1998. None of the ones I read (and this is all I did back then) made the right calls! Tell me which one of these people - all of which chose to pontificate about the first iPod in 2001 - would have led Apple to its current heights: https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...
    - 9y ago
- libdjml 9y ago
  It was obviously the employees who implemented his plans, but those same employees were working there while the company is in utter freefall, so it would seem he clearly had some disproportionate positive impact, no?
  - pharke 9y ago
    Genuine question, did he hire or bring any other new people to the company after becoming CEO?
    - inteleng 9y ago
      Oh stop it, you. Don't let this vague emotional argument turn into something supported by facts! /s
- vinn124 9y ago
  it was the ability of steve jobs to create an organizing principle (and its corresponding organizational structure) that deserves credit for apple's success.
- dpweb 9y ago
  Probably, mostly Jobs. Very few CEOs have that kind of exquisite vision and be able to execute on it. Remember, Jobs’ choices were controversial. No stylus! The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines. People don’t realise, pay, for the masses who dont participate in stock or profit sharing, is ONLY a function of market rates for your role and your salary negotiation.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    "The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines." Fairness is a question of ethics, not a question of how much money a company is making. An ethical decision might actually cost the company money, but still be the right thing to do. Distributing the profits of the company more equitably among its employees is arguably the right thing to do, whether or not it results in a greater profit for the company. That said, with CEO salaries being as astronomical as they are, it's doubtful whether paying them substantially less so that the rest of the employees will be paid more will result in any serious negative impact on the company's profits. Even a tenth of an astronomical salary is still an astronomical salary, and there'll always be supremely qualified people lining up around the block to take those jobs.
    - davrosthedalek 9y ago
      I don't believe that is true. If your company is sufficiently away from its market optimum, i.e. optimal long term profit, another company will outperform, and you will be forced out of the market. Then, all your employees have no job anymore. Not sure that is ethical. It is therefor the charge of the political system to set boundary conditions to shape the optimal point to be ethical (and, at the same time, capable to survive in the world) That's, for example, the idea behind social market economy as in Germany.
pcurve 9y ago
a lot of people deserve to paid more than what they make but it doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Why should that benefit be only extended to CEO when it is his or her job to set long term vision and make large bets?

pmoriarty 9y ago

Was it really Steve Jobs or the people that worked for him that deserve the credit for Apple's success?

maxharris 9y ago
Who chose the people that worked for him? Or do you think that the management team at Apple also does nothing? Much of the board and many of the execs at Apple changed when they bought NeXT. So much so that many people at the time called it a "reverse acquisition." Jobs was great at finding the best talent. Jony Ive was at Apple long before the NeXT acquisition, and Jobs put him in the right position very, very rapidly. Would the average person have done the same thing? Would the average person have cared nearly so much about design?
maxharris 9y ago
Also, what about the decision to stop licensing the MacOS to cloners in 1997? A decision this big has to be made by the CEO. At the time, Apple was dying, and Jobs was the one that made that call. It was quite unpopular at the time. But it was also absolutely the right thing to do! You might find this hard to believe, but Gil Amelio (Apple's CEO before Jobs) floated the idea of splitting Apple into two disintegrated companies - "Apple Hard" and "Apple Soft." Can you guess how that would have turned out? (You can't build an iPod, an iPhone, an iPad or a Mac that way, because the entire point is to make the product better by integration.)
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "A decision this big has to be made by the CEO." Or it could be made by the employees of the company as a whole, or their representatives. The currently popular hierarchical structure isn't the only or necessarily the right way to structure a company. Companies could be worker-owned and allow employees much greater participation in decision making. Anyway, even if one person's decisions are exceptionally consequential doesn't mean they have to be paid an exorbitant amount of money to do it. I'm sure plenty of other people would have taken a fraction of Jobs' salary to make the same decision. There's a cult of personality around Steve Jobs in SV, and I for one find it very hard to swallow.
  - maxharris 9y ago
    Or it could be made by the employees of the company as a whole, or their representatives. The currently popular hierarchical structure isn't the only or necessarily the right way to structure a company. Prove it. Why don't you found a company and show us?
    - pmoriarty 9y ago
      Because I find the business world to be incredibly boring. Founding a company would be just about the last thing I'd be interested in. Anyway, worker-owned and run businesses already exist. You don't need me to show you.
  - maxharris 9y ago
    I'm sure plenty of other people would have taken a fraction of Jobs' salary to make the same decision. There were literally thousands of armchair CEOs - mostly classic Mac cultists - that were writing about what Apple should do to avoid bankruptcy in 1996-1998. None of the ones I read (and this is all I did back then) made the right calls! Tell me which one of these people - all of which chose to pontificate about the first iPod in 2001 - would have led Apple to its current heights: https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ipod https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...
  - 9y ago
libdjml 9y ago
It was obviously the employees who implemented his plans, but those same employees were working there while the company is in utter freefall, so it would seem he clearly had some disproportionate positive impact, no?
- pharke 9y ago
  Genuine question, did he hire or bring any other new people to the company after becoming CEO?
  - inteleng 9y ago
    Oh stop it, you. Don't let this vague emotional argument turn into something supported by facts! /s
vinn124 9y ago
it was the ability of steve jobs to create an organizing principle (and its corresponding organizational structure) that deserves credit for apple's success.
dpweb 9y ago
Probably, mostly Jobs. Very few CEOs have that kind of exquisite vision and be able to execute on it. Remember, Jobs’ choices were controversial. No stylus! The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines. People don’t realise, pay, for the masses who dont participate in stock or profit sharing, is ONLY a function of market rates for your role and your salary negotiation.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines." Fairness is a question of ethics, not a question of how much money a company is making. An ethical decision might actually cost the company money, but still be the right thing to do. Distributing the profits of the company more equitably among its employees is arguably the right thing to do, whether or not it results in a greater profit for the company. That said, with CEO salaries being as astronomical as they are, it's doubtful whether paying them substantially less so that the rest of the employees will be paid more will result in any serious negative impact on the company's profits. Even a tenth of an astronomical salary is still an astronomical salary, and there'll always be supremely qualified people lining up around the block to take those jobs.
  - davrosthedalek 9y ago
    I don't believe that is true. If your company is sufficiently away from its market optimum, i.e. optimal long term profit, another company will outperform, and you will be forced out of the market. Then, all your employees have no job anymore. Not sure that is ethical. It is therefor the charge of the political system to set boundary conditions to shape the optimal point to be ethical (and, at the same time, capable to survive in the world) That's, for example, the idea behind social market economy as in Germany.

pcurve 9y ago

a lot of people deserve to paid more than what they make but it doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Why should that benefit be only extended to CEO when it is his or her job to set long term vision and make large bets?