3 ms·

Weird take. But here goes. Jobs was a jerk. But -- speaking for myself here and many of my colleagues -- we engineers are, ourselves, a pretty egotistical bunch

by leoh 8y ago

Weird take. But here goes. Jobs was a jerk. But -- speaking for myself here and many of my colleagues -- we engineers are, ourselves, a pretty egotistical bunch. And when operating from a place of ego, it's just a lot harder to get great work done. If someone can simultaneously (a) crush your ego while (b) implicitly telling you that you are, in spite of your errors, capable of great work... well, some great things can happen. It no longer becomes an issue about impressing someone (Jobs was notoriously difficult to please) -- it instead becomes a matter of producing excellent work. But what do I know. I have several friends that worked for jobs directly. And he could in fact be a jerk. I have heard him privately described as needing to piss on things. But as a friend of mine said -- "he almost always was right." Incidentally, this position I am taking is to some degree a somewhat Zen / Tibetan Buddhist position. That is, that dissolution of the ego is the most important thing for our well-being. And that teachers, but also anyone, really, that challenges us could actually -- if seen from a pretty advanced perspective -- be seen to help us wake up. To quote a zen master, Torei Enji: "If by any chance such a person should turn against us, become a sworn enemy and abuse and persecute us, we should sincerely bow down with humble language, in reverent belief that he or she is the merciful avatar of Buddha, who uses devices to emancipate us from sinful karma that has been produced and accumulated upon ourselves by our own egoistic delusion and attachment through countless cycles of kalpas." This is not to say that Jobs was a "Buddha"... but that, perhaps, anyone who challenges us in a tremendous way... may be in a way helping direct us to waking up, being our best "self."

everdev 8y ago
Usually I agree with this of thanking those who trigger us and showing us where we need to grow. There is a shadow to it though in that it's not always a rosy outcome when people are challenged continuously and in stressful situations. To quote Carl Jung: "the dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy". For every story of growth, I'm sure there are a few of people quitting who couldn't take the verbal abuse.
dieterrams 8y ago
Jobs’ approach is to inculcate a deep-seated insecurity that drives people to do better work. This is quite a bit different from dissolution of the ego, because it very much depends on the subject having an ego to manipulate.
tomhoward 8y ago
I think about this a lot in relation to my own startup experience. Though I'd never claim to be remotely as talented as Jobs (and the evidence of that is borne out in my decidedly modest startup career success so far), I was the person in my team who filled the Jobs-like role of being a product+strategy lead alongside specialist programmers and designers. I knew they were capable of brilliant things and I saw it as my role to push them to achieve their best, and sometimes I could be brutal with my words and their delivery. In the 4-5 years since I stopped working with that team, I've done a huge amount of personal development/emotional healing work (which could be seen as a version of "ego dissolution" or "shadow integration" work), and I now look back on those days and think "man I was such a jerk to those guys". And I feel that were I to lead a startup team again, I'd hope never to treat people like that, and be far more kind and nurturing to those I work with. Yet we achieved some huge things in those days, and that company lives on, continuing to achieve great things, thanks in big part to the solid foundations we laid back then. So whilst I'd never want to be an outright asshole to people, I'm unsure that you can get great outcomes while being nice to people all the time either. And I sure know that it's when I've been on the receiving end of uncomfortable truths delivered harshly that I've most clearly gotten the message that I needed to improve myself. I find it hard to reconcile the fact that Jobs seemed to spend so much time studying Buddhism and practising meditation and other spiritual practices, presumably seeking emotional peace and balance within himself, yet was still such a tyrant as a company leader. I often wonder whether it's even possible to build a company that makes products as good as Apple's, whilst being kinder and warmer to people than Jobs was. I'm sure there's a healthy balance there somewhere, or at least I really hope there is, but I'm yet to figure out what it is.
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's possible. My best sports coach was demanding and direct, but never insulting or abusive. It's not about niceness, per se. It's about speaking honestly to the objective aspects work while always valuing the person. You can be emotional and mad, just don't take it out on people, and if you lose it, own up to it. Another example. My old CTO had a frank conversation with me about my management style. I cried because I knew I wasn't doing the kind of job I wanted to do. He never said a single word to me that was abusive or out of line. I didn't agree with every word he said, but I took his constructive criticism to heart. You don't have to be an asshole to have a tough conversation with people. Reading this thread, it's so frustrating that people seem to think the two things are the same.
glogla 8y ago
> "he almost always was right." Except when he died of treatable cancer because of his own arrogance and stupidity. Or when he denied paternity of his child.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tomhoward 8y ago
  Comments like this can really spoil discussion threads. There's nothing for anyone to learn here, it just panders to people's pre-established positions. Whether or not his cancer was so easily treatable (experts have written articles disputing this), "arrogance and stupidity" is a rough thing to say about someone facing a life-threatening diagnosis, dealing with all the fear and uncertainty that goes with that, and having to make a call on how best to confront it. The paternity thing was of course a black mark on his legacy, but he was young, and we just don't know what kind of fears and unresolved issues might have been influencing his behaviour at that stage. Whatever the case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The whole point of this discussion topic is to take a nuanced view of Jobs' conduct in a particular context. It could do without rage-bait comments like this.
  - glogla 8y ago
    I am replying to a comment is basically saying "hey he was a fucked up abuser, but he was right some of the time, and he was rich, so he must have been doing something right, right? " If we, as a humanity, are to stay on this world long-term, we have to create a society where humanity is more important than success and money. We can't idolize abusers, manipulators and psychopaths because they are successful CEOs.
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      > "basically saying" Your summary is a gross oversimplification of what was a very thoughtful comment. Like I said, the comment you replied to, and the original article, are valuable for their nuance. Your replies are deliberately lacking in nuance and therefore derail the discussion. Nobody is focusing on how "rich" or "successful" he was; in this discussion people are only talking about how he led his company to build many different products that many people care about and find extremely useful. As you point out, humanity has many important challenges to solve, and in order to solve them we need leaders who can get results. I can agree with you that it would be ideal if those leaders were good-natured people who treat others well. Finding the right balance between getting results and treating people well is an important, complex topic that needs to be discussed with care, not drowned in rage. Edit: For what it's worth, in the past 24 hours I've posted another comment defending people's right to criticise Elon Musk and invoking The Emperor's New Clothes as a demonstration of why it's important to be free to criticise powerful people, no matter how much they claim to be on a mission to "save the world". So I'm not against criticism of successful people. I just like it to be substantive, and of the kind that promotes interesting discussions and generates valuable new insights.
colordrops 8y ago
Must be careful with this attitude so that you don't end up with Stockholm syndrome.
BurningFrog 8y ago
I hope nobody has to be jerk for it to happen, but I'm convinced getting your ego out of your engineering is essential for great success. Care about how well things works, not what part was your idea!! Saying that is easy. When someone says the part you made is crap is the time to practice it.

by leoh 8y ago

everdev 8y ago

Usually I agree with this of thanking those who trigger us and showing us where we need to grow. There is a shadow to it though in that it's not always a rosy outcome when people are challenged continuously and in stressful situations. To quote Carl Jung: "the dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy". For every story of growth, I'm sure there are a few of people quitting who couldn't take the verbal abuse.

dieterrams 8y ago

Jobs’ approach is to inculcate a deep-seated insecurity that drives people to do better work. This is quite a bit different from dissolution of the ego, because it very much depends on the subject having an ego to manipulate.

tomhoward 8y ago

I think about this a lot in relation to my own startup experience. Though I'd never claim to be remotely as talented as Jobs (and the evidence of that is borne out in my decidedly modest startup career success so far), I was the person in my team who filled the Jobs-like role of being a product+strategy lead alongside specialist programmers and designers. I knew they were capable of brilliant things and I saw it as my role to push them to achieve their best, and sometimes I could be brutal with my words and their delivery. In the 4-5 years since I stopped working with that team, I've done a huge amount of personal development/emotional healing work (which could be seen as a version of "ego dissolution" or "shadow integration" work), and I now look back on those days and think "man I was such a jerk to those guys". And I feel that were I to lead a startup team again, I'd hope never to treat people like that, and be far more kind and nurturing to those I work with. Yet we achieved some huge things in those days, and that company lives on, continuing to achieve great things, thanks in big part to the solid foundations we laid back then. So whilst I'd never want to be an outright asshole to people, I'm unsure that you can get great outcomes while being nice to people all the time either. And I sure know that it's when I've been on the receiving end of uncomfortable truths delivered harshly that I've most clearly gotten the message that I needed to improve myself. I find it hard to reconcile the fact that Jobs seemed to spend so much time studying Buddhism and practising meditation and other spiritual practices, presumably seeking emotional peace and balance within himself, yet was still such a tyrant as a company leader. I often wonder whether it's even possible to build a company that makes products as good as Apple's, whilst being kinder and warmer to people than Jobs was. I'm sure there's a healthy balance there somewhere, or at least I really hope there is, but I'm yet to figure out what it is.

acjohnson55 8y ago
I'm pretty sure it's possible. My best sports coach was demanding and direct, but never insulting or abusive. It's not about niceness, per se. It's about speaking honestly to the objective aspects work while always valuing the person. You can be emotional and mad, just don't take it out on people, and if you lose it, own up to it. Another example. My old CTO had a frank conversation with me about my management style. I cried because I knew I wasn't doing the kind of job I wanted to do. He never said a single word to me that was abusive or out of line. I didn't agree with every word he said, but I took his constructive criticism to heart. You don't have to be an asshole to have a tough conversation with people. Reading this thread, it's so frustrating that people seem to think the two things are the same.

glogla 8y ago

> "he almost always was right." Except when he died of treatable cancer because of his own arrogance and stupidity. Or when he denied paternity of his child.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomhoward 8y ago
Comments like this can really spoil discussion threads. There's nothing for anyone to learn here, it just panders to people's pre-established positions. Whether or not his cancer was so easily treatable (experts have written articles disputing this), "arrogance and stupidity" is a rough thing to say about someone facing a life-threatening diagnosis, dealing with all the fear and uncertainty that goes with that, and having to make a call on how best to confront it. The paternity thing was of course a black mark on his legacy, but he was young, and we just don't know what kind of fears and unresolved issues might have been influencing his behaviour at that stage. Whatever the case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The whole point of this discussion topic is to take a nuanced view of Jobs' conduct in a particular context. It could do without rage-bait comments like this.
- glogla 8y ago
  I am replying to a comment is basically saying "hey he was a fucked up abuser, but he was right some of the time, and he was rich, so he must have been doing something right, right? " If we, as a humanity, are to stay on this world long-term, we have to create a society where humanity is more important than success and money. We can't idolize abusers, manipulators and psychopaths because they are successful CEOs.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    > "basically saying" Your summary is a gross oversimplification of what was a very thoughtful comment. Like I said, the comment you replied to, and the original article, are valuable for their nuance. Your replies are deliberately lacking in nuance and therefore derail the discussion. Nobody is focusing on how "rich" or "successful" he was; in this discussion people are only talking about how he led his company to build many different products that many people care about and find extremely useful. As you point out, humanity has many important challenges to solve, and in order to solve them we need leaders who can get results. I can agree with you that it would be ideal if those leaders were good-natured people who treat others well. Finding the right balance between getting results and treating people well is an important, complex topic that needs to be discussed with care, not drowned in rage. Edit: For what it's worth, in the past 24 hours I've posted another comment defending people's right to criticise Elon Musk and invoking The Emperor's New Clothes as a demonstration of why it's important to be free to criticise powerful people, no matter how much they claim to be on a mission to "save the world". So I'm not against criticism of successful people. I just like it to be substantive, and of the kind that promotes interesting discussions and generates valuable new insights.

colordrops 8y ago

Must be careful with this attitude so that you don't end up with Stockholm syndrome.

BurningFrog 8y ago

I hope nobody has to be jerk for it to happen, but I'm convinced getting your ego out of your engineering is essential for great success. Care about how well things works, not what part was your idea!! Saying that is easy. When someone says the part you made is crap is the time to practice it.