Is this something that only Apple does? No. Heck I just read a report today that there are rumors Samsung will be releasing a "premium" Galaxy phone later this year. Apparently that phone will have everything people expected the S5 to have.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Excerpt From New Book Offers Look at Tim Cook's Management Style
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ever heard of W. Edward Demming? He basically trained the Japanese in the early 50s and the result was them annihilating us in the cars and electronics. One of his basic tenets was "Fear is not the best motivator". When you behave like Tim and Steve, you have not gotten the message. It will work for a while but it's a poison that will eventually kill a company. Apple won't last forever...
I admire companies that bring out the best in people without dehumanizing them.
Last edited:
How to lead a monster like Apple?
I like to think of these moments of silents from Tim, as those moments where the spirit of Apple is at works. Everyone may fill in the gaps on its own. At that moment you may think about your role, about what Steve would have said, or what you are supposed to do in the vision of Apple.
Apple Corporate is a monster, that cannot be controlled without the persons in leading positions knowing why they are doing their job.
I don't like leadership styles where someone talks to much, fill in the obvious with words. That's just not manageable at such high governance position.
I hope they also keep up with the visionary aspects of their work. This is where Tim does not shine - but does well in taking a step back and letting the others, the softer personas, do their work. Thinking about vision I like the perspective of Justin: http://oneproject.org.
cheers
I like to think of these moments of silents from Tim, as those moments where the spirit of Apple is at works. Everyone may fill in the gaps on its own. At that moment you may think about your role, about what Steve would have said, or what you are supposed to do in the vision of Apple.
Apple Corporate is a monster, that cannot be controlled without the persons in leading positions knowing why they are doing their job.
I don't like leadership styles where someone talks to much, fill in the obvious with words. That's just not manageable at such high governance position.
I hope they also keep up with the visionary aspects of their work. This is where Tim does not shine - but does well in taking a step back and letting the others, the softer personas, do their work. Thinking about vision I like the perspective of Justin: http://oneproject.org.
cheers
How did he manage to walk away from an explosion without turning back? Management skills!
I expected it to be all anal-retentive, tightly-grouped, tiny and readable.
I'll bet it sounds to you like that, but this is the only way to REALLY get things done ahead of time, below budget and above expectations.
It is common knowledge that an atmosphere with too much freedom, passive management and not taking responsibility for your own work, breeds laziness, fosters inefficiency and scares the really good people away.
It is not a coincidence that low performing individuals usually prefer weak and soft management, whereas high performing individuals prefer stronger management.
When is your book coming out?
Bet he didn't screw up again! That's called effective leadership. "Awe, you didn't research things and come prepared? No problem. The whole company can wait till it's more convenient for you" thing wouldn't work for me either.
He made a comment how competitors are ripping off Apple left and right. Well, that's what happens when products sit in development hell for too long. This iWatch rumor is 2 years old.... and everyone else has put out a product in a "who cares" category.
Apple can still make a splash, but with their resources, it shouldn't take 2 years (probably longer) to get a product out.
I think Tim is fine as is. He just needs to put fire under the people doing the tech. Steve was also great at that. Hell, the iPhone was demoed live and not even a working/usable product and it was on shelves two months later. Why? Because Steve said it had to be so.... who would want to not meet that man's expectations?
lolz
With the standard strict definition of a douche i don't think it's possible to lead a successful company without having a portion of your employees think you're an ass, not everyone sees your company direction from your point of view therefore releasing some employees, reassigning tasks, canceling projects etc... might trigger such kinda vibe that you're a douche, that's one of the reasons why most successful company leaders in our recent history are known to be like that if not widely then at least among a closed circle to some extent, being a strong manager comes with a high cost, taking powerful decisions that not everyone approves of.
I've worked with employers who give the silent treatment. They'll ask what is one plus one and I'll say two. Then they'll give me the silent treatment because in their ignorance they know it was three. I've had this silence go on for over 30 minutes and then finally they'll cave and ask how could it be two.
There's a big difference between cutting projects that need to be cut, firing people who need to be fired, laying off people when there's redundancy, and doing what is described in this article.
Staring at someone with the evil eye isn't effective management, it's just being douche for the sake of being a douche. There's other ways to handle it and get the same performance. But he's got multimillions and I'm poor so i guess it worked for him. Still, I would never want to work for him.
I understand what you are saying, but I think you should not read so much into short term market movements. Traders try to anticipate at most a few months down the line, and Apple has already signaled that not much is happening on the new products front in this quarter. So the softness in the stock price is not unexpected and in reality it would be hard to explain if it wasn't happening. My question is directed towards those of us who take the longer view than the Wall Street traders. I don't see anyone in that group seriously predicting that Apple isn't going to release new products.
It sounded okay to me too. We all know that Steve transformed the train wreck that was Apple into one of the most successful companies on the planet. But for one thing he didn't do it alone, and for another, his style of management by terror had its limitations. It sounds to me like Cook, though he can be intimidating in certain situations, also works harder at being an approachable leader, and one who doesn't want to function within his own personal reality bubble.
You might not have experience with it, but the example of what Cook did is not being a douche. It is being vigilant, accurate and demanding. There is a reason why he earns multiple millions. He has the responsibility for a company that employs thousands upon thousands of people and that sells products to millions of consumers both private and corporate. Imagine the ramifications if someone that works for him doesn't provide quality. It could cost the company millions of consumers and could costs thousands of employees their job.
He does not have time and cannot afford the luxury to sit around with people that provide him with inaccurate information, do not achieve results or cannot answer questions.
I work with and for the board of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. The schedules and responsibility that managers like those have is mind-boggling to most people. Before coming down on Cook or managers in general it might be good to understand the context and to realise that we are not talking about the manager of a bar or coffee shop here.
Last edited:
Style is superfluous to making the right decisions. No one is going to care if you have a style that everyone loves if you can't choose the correct strategies. It's like being a "players coach" in sports: no guarantee that the team will win just based on that metric.
While Cook isn't Steve Jobs Cook is smarter than most people think. In order to run such a complex and demanding company such as Apple he has to be
. Jobs picked him because of his capability it's just that he doesn't get the credit he deserves from Wall Street
. Jobs picked him because of his capability it's just that he doesn't get the credit he deserves from Wall Street
The comments on here are pretty split between some saying Tim is an a** and others saying being intimidating is good for management.
I've worked for both and I can assure you, everyone performed better under a manager that did not use intimidation to get respect. Intimidation is a trait of a bad manager who is either on a power trip or has a god complex. However, I do agree that the top employees of companies like Apple should be pushed a little harder, after all they are the ones making $500000 a year or more but that is still no excuse to dehumanize them.
No one works well in a stressful environment. To those saying this treatment is required for a successful company, I give you 2 VERY successful companies who treat their employees fantastic:
1. Valve: at Valve, you technically don't have a boss. If you want to see how their management system works, you can download the new employee handbook from their website.
2. Google: said to be a very fun and energetic place to work. The only real complaint was a lower than expected starting wage.
Like someone else said a Apple has probably lost a good amount of very talented people due to the way Steve and/or Tim treated them. When you think iPhone, we all tend to think of Johnny Ive, but there are key people behind Ive that truly made the iPhone possible. You have to wonder how many of those people left and what the iPhone 5 could have been if they were still at Apple.
I've worked for both and I can assure you, everyone performed better under a manager that did not use intimidation to get respect. Intimidation is a trait of a bad manager who is either on a power trip or has a god complex. However, I do agree that the top employees of companies like Apple should be pushed a little harder, after all they are the ones making $500000 a year or more but that is still no excuse to dehumanize them.
No one works well in a stressful environment. To those saying this treatment is required for a successful company, I give you 2 VERY successful companies who treat their employees fantastic:
1. Valve: at Valve, you technically don't have a boss. If you want to see how their management system works, you can download the new employee handbook from their website.
2. Google: said to be a very fun and energetic place to work. The only real complaint was a lower than expected starting wage.
Like someone else said a Apple has probably lost a good amount of very talented people due to the way Steve and/or Tim treated them. When you think iPhone, we all tend to think of Johnny Ive, but there are key people behind Ive that truly made the iPhone possible. You have to wonder how many of those people left and what the iPhone 5 could have been if they were still at Apple.
Haha. You people have no clue what you're talking about. A few accounts from former employees who couldn't hack it don't mean anything. This company is the most successful company in the world, ever. And on Tim Cook's watch. Like it or not, he's way above your criticism.
But, commenters will comment.
But, commenters will comment.