I think you're hating on SJ just to hate...
Ah, to the contrary. Typically this may apply to most CEO's, however Jobs is heavily involved in Apple's projects. This is ascertained by another verified practice: Jobs intentionally keeps a small employee base. Apple hires employees who are capable of working in a myriad of departments in order to move employees as needed. For example, during the release of OS X 10.5 Leopard that coincided with the release of the iPhone in 2007, instead of hiring more staff Jobs moved developers from the OS X team to the iPhone team. This resulted in a delay of OS X 10.5 from the Summer to October. Managing a small employee base for a large company allows Jobs to personally know almost every employee's capabilities and to micromanage his projects. Jobs has worked with one lead industrial designer, Jonny Ive, for more than a decade. Jobs needs to have control over his projects, reputation, employee base and life.
Question: if it's YOUR company then why wouldn't you want to field a manageable sized team that you can trust and rely on for seeing through your vision of the company? Seems to me he has a winning formula down for Apple, so why tamper with it's success?
Wow, I have to admit, that is very interesting when analyzed objectively. ... Do not confuse Jobs' ideas with his treatment of his employees as a measure of Apple's success. He is a visionary and a perfectionist who micromanages a large corporation, it is not the treatment of his employees that has lead Apple to succeed.
Although I do very much agree with you that micromanagement is not a good thing overall, there still is a difference between doing that and holding your staff (and project leaders in particular) accountable for delivering on their goal-orientated tasks. You don't become the best accepting mediocre results. Period.
It's tantamount to Stockholm Syndrome. ... Excusing Jobs' behavior because we like Apple products and dismissing those who take issue as whiners and freeloaders is baffling. ... Negative reinforcement may work initially but soon the hamster in the wheel realizes the reality of their situation and removes themselves from the equation, either dissociatively or otherwise.
See, I just think you're over-reaching here in your generalized (and somewhat provocative) assessments, then you go into preachy-mode about "best practices" of the work environment, while at the same time (unintentionally I assume) marginalize the employee "victim" as some meaningless "hamster" in the final equation. C'mon now, get off it, are you just trying to stir to pot here?
Also, I think you're taking one article's review of an incident at Apple and falsely assuming they have some toxic working environment there. Yes, we all know about SJ's infamous fuse when things aren't living up to his expectations, but how is it a poor leadership style to hold your staff accountable for their work & effort?
I can't imagine if the conditions at Apple are so bad like you're suggesting, then where are all of these miserable, under appreciated, and formerly abused ex-Apple employees speaking out at? Why are they not creating any noise to pull the clothes off the "sham" that is Apple's success?!
Exactly.
Listen, there is no perfect model for motivating your staff without hurting someone's feelings from time to time when you conduct a performance review. However, the key thing is that the culture of any work environment
shouldn't facilitate and tolerate purposefully demeaning behavior by management while they assess their staff's productivity. And last time I checked, based on my limited insight into how Apple is operated as a company, everyone seems to be a satisfied employee/#winner there more or less.
Apple has broken the norm mostly due to its "cult" work atmosphere; it's hard to hate something when you're told to love it.
See, now I know you're just trying to stir the pot.
Have you worked at Apple to know the conditions there first hand? Have you interviewed anyone that works there to gauge their thoughts/feelings on their employment experiences with Apple? Have you talked to any ex-employees of Apple and taken in considerations their own personal goals and and agendas related to their departure/termination from Apple? Don't claim to be objective when you're accusing Apple/SJ of cultivating "Stockholm Syndrome" with it's employees, and your basis of analysis is seemingly coming from just a bunch of publicly distributed reports about what a demanding CEO Steve Jobs can be (whether rightfully or not) as that is not enough information to make that strong statement on.
Personally, I could care less if SJ is a d*** in the office, the fact is it's his company and if you aren't up to snuff as his employee, to participate in the environment and culture that he created there, then you're gone or you just move on. With that said, I'm not advocating whatsoever abusive relationships in the workplace, but at the same time if the man has to light a fire under people's butts to help motivate them to get the job done then I don't see what the problem is with that; nor do I see it as a reason to demonize him for it.
