3 ms·

I think the biggest change Tim made from Steve is that Tim’s decision and management style seems more committee/group based, whereas Steve was much more autonom

I think the biggest change Tim made from Steve is that Tim’s decision and management style seems more committee/group based, whereas Steve was much more autonomous; this is how it is now do it. I know he didn’t want everyone thinking what would Steve do, but I do often wonder what someone with Steve’s authority would do.

duxup 6y ago
The impression I got was that Steve operated in a way that 'seemed' autonomous, but in terms of the results he was still letting folks around him do their thing, even if it went through him. Maybe it was the case of a strong personality / operational style that seemed more autonomous than it was? I find that people often seem to read strong personalities as sort of autocratic by default, even if they're not. Often when in those situations I've had to explain to coworkers that "No, he wasn't shooting you down, that was your chance to explain further / show him more."
- Applejinx 6y ago
  That sounds about right. It was called 'management through walking around', and he got up in people's faces and demanded they perform better and compete with each other. He was the arbiter, and fickle, but he wasn't trying to get people to be subservient. Guy Kawasaki described it as, Jobs was so confident he brought a guy into Apple who took the company away from him. He was so full of himself it was impossible for him to be in any way threatened by capable subordinates no matter HOW good they were: he'd just bully them and be mercurial and try to get their maximum performance out of them. So in a sense, it was all the other people. Not him. And in another sense, it took a very unusual person to be able to do that, and be constantly outclassed, and not begin to act defensively. There's a cost to it: Apple was doing the Newton way way before there were cellphones and such. Jobs wasn't that wise, just impossibly audacious, and as such he did manage to operate a team of exceptional people. He wasn't the team, but as far as a leader being the leader, he was about as intense as Gordon Ramsay, and absolutely he let the people around him shine: to him, that WAS him looking good. And it wouldn't make you safe from criticism for even five minutes, but he did love it when people around him were great. Jobs was the 'A players hire A players. B players hire C players. You hired THAT GUY?' manager. He not only expected people around him to excel, he literally demanded it.
  - desiarnezjr 6y ago
    Newton was all Scully as I recall. Not Jobs.
  - drewda 6y ago
    "Management through walking around" comes from Hewlett-Packard. At least as practiced by at Packard and Hewlett, it was supposedly more about learning from individual contributors in labs and on factory floors -- without only getting information filtered through middle management -- not "getting up in people's faces and demanding they perform better."
- ValentineC 6y ago
  I really liked this interview and discussion from two weeks back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26033689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26033689
- darkerside 6y ago
  That seems like a failure to express intent properly. You can have a strong personality and powerfully seek feedback or clarification. Not mutually exclusive.
  - duxup 6y ago
    I think it is different traditions and etc. I'm from the midwest. When I worked my first 'real job' I worked with some folks from the east coast. They could be very blunt and harsh to my Midwestern ears. Right until I realized that when they speak to you that way they're really engaging you and seeing if you'll respond in kind in order to demonstrate how certain you are about what you said. The right words with the right emphasis and it was all "Well Tom seems to think..." and they're on board with you. Took me like 12 months to figure that out, that and them kinda hassling me was a sign of respect ;)
    - darkerside 6y ago
      They put the onus on you to figure it out, and that's fine. I don't think it refutes what I said, which is that it is a failure to demonstrate what they are looking for. If they don't have the time or inclination to deal with people who don't "get it", that's up to them. They probably miss out on some opportunities because of it, but maybe avail themselves of others, or sidestep some distractions.
ksec 6y ago
Steve's advice was "Dont think what he would do, but do what you think is right." The problem is knowing what is right, and that is exactly the strength of Steve. Often by intuition, and some by experience where he made mistakes and he quickly correct. And right now the designed by committee seems to be lacking the latter attribute. Tim Cook is also much more focused on Revenue and Profits with their Strategy. Steve is much more product based.
- abraxas 6y ago
  I think the focus on privacy might be the new face of Apple that will redefine it for the post Jobs era
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    It's a smart move, how can Google respond without undermining their whole business model. Microsoft struggles with it as well, it's not something their enterprise customers are asking for.

duxup 6y ago

The impression I got was that Steve operated in a way that 'seemed' autonomous, but in terms of the results he was still letting folks around him do their thing, even if it went through him. Maybe it was the case of a strong personality / operational style that seemed more autonomous than it was? I find that people often seem to read strong personalities as sort of autocratic by default, even if they're not. Often when in those situations I've had to explain to coworkers that "No, he wasn't shooting you down, that was your chance to explain further / show him more."

Applejinx 6y ago
That sounds about right. It was called 'management through walking around', and he got up in people's faces and demanded they perform better and compete with each other. He was the arbiter, and fickle, but he wasn't trying to get people to be subservient. Guy Kawasaki described it as, Jobs was so confident he brought a guy into Apple who took the company away from him. He was so full of himself it was impossible for him to be in any way threatened by capable subordinates no matter HOW good they were: he'd just bully them and be mercurial and try to get their maximum performance out of them. So in a sense, it was all the other people. Not him. And in another sense, it took a very unusual person to be able to do that, and be constantly outclassed, and not begin to act defensively. There's a cost to it: Apple was doing the Newton way way before there were cellphones and such. Jobs wasn't that wise, just impossibly audacious, and as such he did manage to operate a team of exceptional people. He wasn't the team, but as far as a leader being the leader, he was about as intense as Gordon Ramsay, and absolutely he let the people around him shine: to him, that WAS him looking good. And it wouldn't make you safe from criticism for even five minutes, but he did love it when people around him were great. Jobs was the 'A players hire A players. B players hire C players. You hired THAT GUY?' manager. He not only expected people around him to excel, he literally demanded it.
- desiarnezjr 6y ago
  Newton was all Scully as I recall. Not Jobs.
- drewda 6y ago
  "Management through walking around" comes from Hewlett-Packard. At least as practiced by at Packard and Hewlett, it was supposedly more about learning from individual contributors in labs and on factory floors -- without only getting information filtered through middle management -- not "getting up in people's faces and demanding they perform better."
ValentineC 6y ago
I really liked this interview and discussion from two weeks back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26033689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26033689
darkerside 6y ago
That seems like a failure to express intent properly. You can have a strong personality and powerfully seek feedback or clarification. Not mutually exclusive.
- duxup 6y ago
  I think it is different traditions and etc. I'm from the midwest. When I worked my first 'real job' I worked with some folks from the east coast. They could be very blunt and harsh to my Midwestern ears. Right until I realized that when they speak to you that way they're really engaging you and seeing if you'll respond in kind in order to demonstrate how certain you are about what you said. The right words with the right emphasis and it was all "Well Tom seems to think..." and they're on board with you. Took me like 12 months to figure that out, that and them kinda hassling me was a sign of respect ;)
  - darkerside 6y ago
    They put the onus on you to figure it out, and that's fine. I don't think it refutes what I said, which is that it is a failure to demonstrate what they are looking for. If they don't have the time or inclination to deal with people who don't "get it", that's up to them. They probably miss out on some opportunities because of it, but maybe avail themselves of others, or sidestep some distractions.

ksec 6y ago

Steve's advice was "Dont think what he would do, but do what you think is right." The problem is knowing what is right, and that is exactly the strength of Steve. Often by intuition, and some by experience where he made mistakes and he quickly correct. And right now the designed by committee seems to be lacking the latter attribute. Tim Cook is also much more focused on Revenue and Profits with their Strategy. Steve is much more product based.

abraxas 6y ago
I think the focus on privacy might be the new face of Apple that will redefine it for the post Jobs era
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  It's a smart move, how can Google respond without undermining their whole business model. Microsoft struggles with it as well, it's not something their enterprise customers are asking for.