4 ms·

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 usual

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.

talmand 14y ago
I would like to know what traits you believe he showed that would make him a great hire for a decision-making role early in his career.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Lack of deference to authority, independent mindset.
  - talmand 14y ago
    I would debate whether those traits make for sure-fire great decision making. That sounds more like the kind of guy you stick in the corner by himself and let him go at it to see what he comes up with. A person with a lack of deference to authority may not be good at maintaining his authority. Being of an independent mindset may not mix well with a team.
pjungwir 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle... ) 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.

talmand 14y ago

I would like to know what traits you believe he showed that would make him a great hire for a decision-making role early in his career.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Lack of deference to authority, independent mindset.
- talmand 14y ago
  I would debate whether those traits make for sure-fire great decision making. That sounds more like the kind of guy you stick in the corner by himself and let him go at it to see what he comes up with. A person with a lack of deference to authority may not be good at maintaining his authority. Being of an independent mindset may not mix well with a team.

pjungwir 14y ago

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 14y ago
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-macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle... ) 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.