6 ms·

I also feel it's wolves who make the best entrepreneurs. But everything is make against the entrepreneur wolf. Even accelerators may destroy the potential of a

I also feel it's wolves who make the best entrepreneurs. But everything is make against the entrepreneur wolf. Even accelerators may destroy the potential of a very strong vision that wolves can't explain. Steve Jobs was certainly a wolf.

ams6110 12y ago
Was he? I have't read his biographies but my general impression is that while Steve Jobs was certainly a visionary and an entrepreneur, he was not really an engineer. Did he write a lot of code? Did he really engineer anything? Or did he surround himself with excellent engineers who could create his visions?
- yzzxy 12y ago
  He was probably the world's best incarnation of the "product manager" role. He conceived and designed (not necessarily visually or technically) most of apple's flagship products, including the Apple Store, which has the world's highest retail volume per square foot. And I can easily see that role being a great place for a Wolf.
- lutusp 12y ago
  I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible, but I can say he wasn't an engineer or a serious coder. He was what is now called a "visionary", a catch-all phrase that can mean anything or nothing. When Bill Gates saw bad code, he would sit down and rewrite the code to shame the perpetrator. Steve didn't have that option. This is how he acquired a deserved reputation as a tyrant -- he could only fire people or humiliate them before their coworkers, but he couldn't outperform them. In the early days at Apple, and not to oversimplify, people like me coded the software, while Steve coded the customers. On the general topic of Steve Jobs, I highly recommend the Isaacson biography, excellent book, and one that openly acknowledges Steve's core malady -- pathological narcissism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book)
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible So, did you tell that to his face? Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. As if all he did was shout at people and look at his fabulous self in the mirror... He created and brought several companies to the top -- on of those twice, first from a garage, then from near banrunptcy. And he did that while ignoring all the BS advice given by analysts and industry pundits, as well as the directions and fads of the industry for a whole decade. Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > So, did you tell that to his face? Never. Couldn't take the risk -- we had a very lucrative relationship that such a statement would have jeopardized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer > Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. Not really. Most people who worked closely with Jobs held the same views, and didn't express them. But read the Isaacson book, see for yourself. Narcissists aren't a role model for self-criticism or a willingness to hear the criticisms of others. > Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America. You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.
      - coldtea 12y ago
        >You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. I don't say he created OS X or the iPod, etc. Neither in their technical details, nor even in their high level UI (although he had some influence in that too)(). Just that he created a very specific climate and culture were those things could be produced in the way they were, and steered towards specific approaches to product lines, pricing, etc that could make those products thrive. Competitors with the same amount of assets (or even far more at the start), and tons of "very creative people" couldn't get something as coherent out, and seemed to miss the whole point time and again. Not with things that require luck or money or access to talent, but with things that require specific decisions. Similarly, those "prime technological opportunities" were available for all who could see it, and "very creative people" were working in all companies too. It's not like Apple, NeXT, Apple-2-in-near-bankrupcy were even a particularly attractive employer (at least before the iPod's success). >Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.* Don't know, the IBM PC market for example had IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, etc competing rather strongly for 2 decades or so (which are aeons in IT). And I don't think most competitors to Apple products had just "superficial differences". Following the scene since the late nineties I see a repeated, generalized lack of a plan and understanding of the markets they tried to compete with Apple in. (*) Also I don't doubt that he had sociopathic aspects, although I'm not his doctor and I didn't have to be around him, so I don't care about that. At least he didn't kill anyone, which is better that lots of people in my book. I'd call any banker or golden parachute type of manager a worse sociopath.
- greenyoda 12y ago
  Also, you can't be the wolf who sidesteps established authority when you're the CEO. The CEO is the one who makes the policies that the wolves ignore.
PeterWhittaker 12y ago
Consider that many organizational structures are designed to get maximum benefit from most employees - and, almost by definition, most employees are average. HR, for example, exists partly if not primarily to 1) identify those in the bottom fraction (whatever that fraction is) and make them harmless as painlessly as possible (this might mean getting them out the door or it might mean shunting to a position where the {harm, value, cost} equation works out adequately well; 2) identifying those in the middle and retaining them as cheaply as possible, possibly with non-financial incentives appealing to affiliation motives, sloganeering, etc.; and 3) to identify the crème-de-la-crème, the wolves, the going-places-and-will-rock-it-along-the-way, etc., and tailoring incentives, including compensation, for these. I'd go so far as to say that most managers (not all, and not the best ones, but most) will attempt to game HR into forcing their misfits into the bottom fraction (these could be potentially stellar performers who don't fit with the manager) and will attempt to convince everyone that they have stars when they don't, because it makes them look good. The managers and executives who want the top percentile players recognize that they have to fight HR to make the right things happen, because often HR, like all other organizations, is filled with average players who recognize those whose performance is below theirs and cannot fathom those whose performance is above - they see only the bared teeth, the feral eyes, and assume the wolf must be culled. They do not recognize its value. (Yeah, OK, this meandered a bit. Honestly, I'm too lazy to write it well, so I'm going for metaphorical effect. But you might know what I mean....)
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  It's an interesting theory, but I'd take it a step further. HR does not exist to do the identifying or the sorting per se. The sorting takes place at the executive levels, on down through the chain of management. HR just carries out the sorting. Formalizes it. HR cannot identify wolves, because HR does not perform that function in the first place. Management identifies the wolves and lets HR know that they're special. HR doesn't write the script; it carries out the script.
- thesteamboat 12y ago
  > almost by definition, most employees are average. This is not clear to me at all. it may be that we have two equally numerous groups of employees, and the first class is three times as effective as the first class. In this example, no single employee is average, everyone is either 50% or 150% average workers. You can make the numbers as extreme as you want and you can think of various explanations that would explain this skills gap's existence and persistence. (Maybe we are comparing different departments, the company has normal sales reps and stellar engineers.)
danso 12y ago
Of all the Apple legends, I would not have picked Steve Jobs to fit the OP's description of a "wolf". Steve Wozniak seems a much more appropriate choice, given that he pretty much single-handedly wrote Apple BASIC (despite not formally studying compilers or languages himself), built the floppy disk (with some help), and the first connection between keyboard and terminal. From the various biographies of Woz and Jobs, it seems unlikely that Jobs would've even realized the potential of a color monitor had Woz not brilliantly designed it for maximal efficiency.
HillRat 12y ago
"Wolves" -- if you accept the concept -- are basically the anti-entrepreneur. We're talking about engineers who get head-down in deep problems, without the interest or ability to turn them into actual products. I learned the hard way that when a startup's key differentiator is "run by a brilliant engineer/scientist/mathematician," back away slowly. Someone on this thread mentions Woz as a prototypical "wolf," which is probably right -- what made him work within the later Apple environment is that he could work on very focused, discrete projects such as the Disk ][. Compare with Burrell Smith, who was equally brilliant and equally idiosyncratic, but was able to function within the confines of the Mac development team (albeit with a certain degree of effort by management).

ams6110 12y ago

Was he? I have't read his biographies but my general impression is that while Steve Jobs was certainly a visionary and an entrepreneur, he was not really an engineer. Did he write a lot of code? Did he really engineer anything? Or did he surround himself with excellent engineers who could create his visions?

yzzxy 12y ago
He was probably the world's best incarnation of the "product manager" role. He conceived and designed (not necessarily visually or technically) most of apple's flagship products, including the Apple Store, which has the world's highest retail volume per square foot. And I can easily see that role being a great place for a Wolf.
lutusp 12y ago
I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible, but I can say he wasn't an engineer or a serious coder. He was what is now called a "visionary", a catch-all phrase that can mean anything or nothing. When Bill Gates saw bad code, he would sit down and rewrite the code to shame the perpetrator. Steve didn't have that option. This is how he acquired a deserved reputation as a tyrant -- he could only fire people or humiliate them before their coworkers, but he couldn't outperform them. In the early days at Apple, and not to oversimplify, people like me coded the software, while Steve coded the customers. On the general topic of Steve Jobs, I highly recommend the Isaacson biography, excellent book, and one that openly acknowledges Steve's core malady -- pathological narcissism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_(book)
- coldtea 12y ago
  >I worked around Steve for years, I couldn't stand him so I spent as little time in his company as possible So, did you tell that to his face? Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. As if all he did was shout at people and look at his fabulous self in the mirror... He created and brought several companies to the top -- on of those twice, first from a garage, then from near banrunptcy. And he did that while ignoring all the BS advice given by analysts and industry pundits, as well as the directions and fads of the industry for a whole decade. Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > So, did you tell that to his face? Never. Couldn't take the risk -- we had a very lucrative relationship that such a statement would have jeopardized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer > Because this sounds like post-mortem sour grapes. Not really. Most people who worked closely with Jobs held the same views, and didn't express them. But read the Isaacson book, see for yourself. Narcissists aren't a role model for self-criticism or a willingness to hear the criticisms of others. > Heck, his "most failed" company was sold off for $400 million, and ended up domineering the buyer company, saving it and leading it to become the hugest company in America. You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >You're overlooking several factors -- the influence of very creative people who worked with Jobs, a prime technological opportunity (new technical devices and abilities culminating in the personal computer), and chance. I don't say he created OS X or the iPod, etc. Neither in their technical details, nor even in their high level UI (although he had some influence in that too)(). Just that he created a very specific climate and culture were those things could be produced in the way they were, and steered towards specific approaches to product lines, pricing, etc that could make those products thrive. Competitors with the same amount of assets (or even far more at the start), and tons of "very creative people" couldn't get something as coherent out, and seemed to miss the whole point time and again. Not with things that require luck or money or access to talent, but with things that require specific decisions. Similarly, those "prime technological opportunities" were available for all who could see it, and "very creative people" were working in all companies too. It's not like Apple, NeXT, Apple-2-in-near-bankrupcy were even a particularly attractive employer (at least before the iPod's success). >Of several companies in competition, if you somehow were able to erase anything but superficial differences, one of them would still come out on top, because of a snowball effect in which people decide en masse that they prefer A to B for no particular reason.* Don't know, the IBM PC market for example had IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, etc competing rather strongly for 2 decades or so (which are aeons in IT). And I don't think most competitors to Apple products had just "superficial differences". Following the scene since the late nineties I see a repeated, generalized lack of a plan and understanding of the markets they tried to compete with Apple in. (*) Also I don't doubt that he had sociopathic aspects, although I'm not his doctor and I didn't have to be around him, so I don't care about that. At least he didn't kill anyone, which is better that lots of people in my book. I'd call any banker or golden parachute type of manager a worse sociopath.
greenyoda 12y ago
Also, you can't be the wolf who sidesteps established authority when you're the CEO. The CEO is the one who makes the policies that the wolves ignore.

PeterWhittaker 12y ago

Consider that many organizational structures are designed to get maximum benefit from most employees - and, almost by definition, most employees are average. HR, for example, exists partly if not primarily to 1) identify those in the bottom fraction (whatever that fraction is) and make them harmless as painlessly as possible (this might mean getting them out the door or it might mean shunting to a position where the {harm, value, cost} equation works out adequately well; 2) identifying those in the middle and retaining them as cheaply as possible, possibly with non-financial incentives appealing to affiliation motives, sloganeering, etc.; and 3) to identify the crème-de-la-crème, the wolves, the going-places-and-will-rock-it-along-the-way, etc., and tailoring incentives, including compensation, for these. I'd go so far as to say that most managers (not all, and not the best ones, but most) will attempt to game HR into forcing their misfits into the bottom fraction (these could be potentially stellar performers who don't fit with the manager) and will attempt to convince everyone that they have stars when they don't, because it makes them look good. The managers and executives who want the top percentile players recognize that they have to fight HR to make the right things happen, because often HR, like all other organizations, is filled with average players who recognize those whose performance is below theirs and cannot fathom those whose performance is above - they see only the bared teeth, the feral eyes, and assume the wolf must be culled. They do not recognize its value. (Yeah, OK, this meandered a bit. Honestly, I'm too lazy to write it well, so I'm going for metaphorical effect. But you might know what I mean....)

jonnathanson 12y ago
It's an interesting theory, but I'd take it a step further. HR does not exist to do the identifying or the sorting per se. The sorting takes place at the executive levels, on down through the chain of management. HR just carries out the sorting. Formalizes it. HR cannot identify wolves, because HR does not perform that function in the first place. Management identifies the wolves and lets HR know that they're special. HR doesn't write the script; it carries out the script.
thesteamboat 12y ago
> almost by definition, most employees are average. This is not clear to me at all. it may be that we have two equally numerous groups of employees, and the first class is three times as effective as the first class. In this example, no single employee is average, everyone is either 50% or 150% average workers. You can make the numbers as extreme as you want and you can think of various explanations that would explain this skills gap's existence and persistence. (Maybe we are comparing different departments, the company has normal sales reps and stellar engineers.)

danso 12y ago

Of all the Apple legends, I would not have picked Steve Jobs to fit the OP's description of a "wolf". Steve Wozniak seems a much more appropriate choice, given that he pretty much single-handedly wrote Apple BASIC (despite not formally studying compilers or languages himself), built the floppy disk (with some help), and the first connection between keyboard and terminal. From the various biographies of Woz and Jobs, it seems unlikely that Jobs would've even realized the potential of a color monitor had Woz not brilliantly designed it for maximal efficiency.

HillRat 12y ago

"Wolves" -- if you accept the concept -- are basically the anti-entrepreneur. We're talking about engineers who get head-down in deep problems, without the interest or ability to turn them into actual products. I learned the hard way that when a startup's key differentiator is "run by a brilliant engineer/scientist/mathematician," back away slowly. Someone on this thread mentions Woz as a prototypical "wolf," which is probably right -- what made him work within the later Apple environment is that he could work on very focused, discrete projects such as the Disk ][. Compare with Burrell Smith, who was equally brilliant and equally idiosyncratic, but was able to function within the confines of the Mac development team (albeit with a certain degree of effort by management).