Excerpt From New Book Offers Look at Tim Cook's Management Style

[peterdevries]

The comments on here are pretty split between some saying Tim is an a** and others saying being intimidating is good for management.

No, there are quite a few saying something in between, like me. Being intimidating does not have anything to do with being determined and demanding the best from the people around you.

If you sit at the table with Cook, there is a high possibility that you are a very well paid manager with lots of responsibility. In that situation you had better do your job well, otherwise there are many people that are probably quite willing and likely more able than you to do it.

80% of the talks on these management tables are about accountability and process management. As a manager you should be able to explain and manage in detail all aspects of what you are responsible for. Cook is ultimately responsible for the performance of all the thousands of people that work for him. And he has to answer to a group of shareholders that hold shares in the most valuable company in the world. It is only natural and expected that Cook (and Steve did also) demands the best from his managers.

We can all come down on Cook, but the CEO's of all major companies are no different than him: AT&T, Microsoft, Google etc etc. These might all be people that are nice in public functions like for example Richard Branson, but you can be sura that when Branson sits with you (and you are CEO of one of his businesses) he demands exactly the same as Cook does from his direct reports.

You can't blame anyone here for not knowing this, but anyone who doesn't get this should spend some time observing a boardroom of a major company. They are all the same.

 

[BCWorld]

WOW, I wonder if this information can be trusted...

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

Lots of the comments are silly, but then, so is yours. Nobody is above criticism, let alone, way above it.

 

[ElTorro]

I wonder when the board will take a page out of Tim's book and ask him over and over again:
"Tim, where are all those new exciting products that you've been promising for years?"
"Tim, where are all those new exciting products that you've been promising for years?"
"Tim, where are all those new exciting products that you've been promising for years?"

 

[Rogifan]

I wonder when the board will take a page out of Tim's book and ask him over and over again:
"Tim, where are all those new exciting products that you've been promising for years?"
"Tim, where are all those new exciting products that you've been promising for years?"
"Tim, where are all those new exciting products that you've been promising for years?"

I'd rather Tim get it right than release stuff just to meet someone's artificial time time table. Besides Tim never promised new product categories before 2014.

----------

He sounds like a jackass. Too bad some CEOs can't learn how to be effective and human at the same time.

I'll bet if profiles like were done on most CEOs they'd come across as arseholes. Plus we don't know how much of this is accurate and how much is a narrative to sell books.

 

[MRCow]

I don't. The market does.

The market isn't really a good indicator of success. (And a quick note to all: stock price and market capitalization is two distinct things). Regardless, Apple's market capitalization, its market value, is #1.

Also, Steve Jobs was successful not because he drove Apple's stock price high (and in actuality it peaked long after his death), but because he created Apple as it is now, an organization that will stand the test of time. If you think Apple will fail, because Steve Job left, then you basically admit that Steve Jobs failed at making Apple a lasting project that will continue to think differently and create revolutionary products. Or in other words, you admit Apple died, the day Steve Jobs died; the company you call Apple now is not Steve Jobs' creation, it is a different organization entirely.

 

[drewyboy]

As posted above, Tim is probably in btwn. He demands accountability because he needs to. As again said earlier, no other multi billion dollar company is any different at the top.

Here's the thing, you need to be like this to be at the top of one of the majors. In business, there is no "nice play" or "buddy buddy". It's cut throat. I don't see why many don't see that. Apparently to some of you corporate espionage is as "fiction" as our government spying on us... oh wait.

 

[Rogifan]

The market isn't really a good indicator of success. (And a quick note to all: stock price and market capitalization is two distinct things). Regardless, Apple's market capitalization, its market value, is #1.

Also, Steve Jobs was successful not because he drove Apple's stock price high (and in actuality it peaked long after his death), but because he created Apple as it is now, an organization that will stand the test of time. If you think Apple will fail, because Steve Job left, then you basically admit that Steve Jobs failed at making Apple a lasting project that will continue to think differently and create revolutionary products. Or in other words, you admit Apple died, the day Steve Jobs died; the company you call Apple now is not Steve Jobs' creation, it is a different organization entirely.

This. Those who think Apple is a failure right now or can't survive without Steve are basically admitting he didn't do very well in succession planning or creating a company and culture that would survive him.

 

[rdlink]

Quite the contrary. The are many different types of effective leaders, and Tim is in the right place. The employees that need coddling and reassurance are not necessarily less valuable than those that do not, but those are not the employees Apple is seeking to hire, or to have on staff. Apple looks to have sharp, efficient, and detail-oriented personnel in key areas of the company. Therefore, to lead such a team, you need to push them to their limits so that they can shine. I bet you that after being drilled like that in front of your peers, the next time you have to present, you'll make sure that you are perfect! Like I said it's not for everyone, but for the Apple elite, you better be ready and willing to take a beating, pick yourself up, grow and overcome. That way in the future, when you're head and shoulders above all the others in your same category, you'll be able to handle what others would deem insurmountable. Being afforded a compliment by such a leader feels like no other compliment you have ever received. Not only do they earn you self respect and the respect of those around you, you can truly say that you worked hard and succeeded where many would not be able to-- that's an incredible achievement.

Spot on. All of the whiny posts from those who would demonize a leader who holds his well paid employees accountable, and would defend employees unwilling or unable to produce at a higher level seem to be the words of people who work for one of the many mediocre companies that define American industry these days.

 

[Piggie]

I think we all know there is a vast difference between being an excellent leader that expects the best from well paid managers.
And a leader who is a cock that used childish tactic to try and intimidate people simply because they hold power of you as they pay your wage.

I'm sure too many of us know just how childish boardroom games can be, that would be better kept in the school playground than a table of grown adults.

You can lead and be excellent, without being a cock

 

[Identity Fraud]

Declining share price is the concern.

Perpetual infinite growth is impossible. Why is it a concern? Is it just because windfalls of money isn't being made right now? Are people just inpatient? Greedy? All of the above?

Apple doesn't really NEED stock holders to fund their enterprises, they do things that make sense for the long haul because when you drill down and just focus on nothing but numbers and ways to always improve you're going to hit a wall. You're inevitably going to disregard the intangibles of business and customer relationships for too long and implode. There is a difference between being a company that only focuses on the profits and being a company that focuses on making worthwhile things that wind up making profits.

 

[SusanK]

The market isn't really a good indicator of success. (And a quick note to all: stock price and market capitalization is two distinct things). Regardless, Apple's market capitalization, its market value, is #1.

Also, Steve Jobs was successful not because he drove Apple's stock price high (and in actuality it peaked long after his death), but because he created Apple as it is now, an organization that will stand the test of time. If you think Apple will fail, because Steve Job left, then you basically admit that Steve Jobs failed at making Apple a lasting project that will continue to think differently and create revolutionary products. Or in other words, you admit Apple died, the day Steve Jobs died; the company you call Apple now is not Steve Jobs' creation, it is a different organization entirely.

Price of one share x number of outstanding shares = market capitalization.

I posted the exact date of APPL all time high on this thread. Go back and read it. The all time high date was almost a year after Steve's death. I am not understanding why you are attempting to clear that up for me.

Apple Inc. is a separate entity. It is not Steve Jobs. Steve has no ongoing responsibilities for Apple Inc after his death.

If I follow your logic the next time on of my light bulbs burns out or there is a power outtage it is Thomas Edison's fault.

----------

Perpetual infinite growth is impossible. Why is it a concern? Is it just because windfalls of money isn't being made right now? Are people just inpatient? Greedy? All of the above?

Apple doesn't really NEED stock holders to fund their enterprises, they do things that make sense for the long haul because when you drill down and just focus on nothing but numbers and ways to always improve you're going to hit a wall. You're inevitably going to disregard the intangibles of business and customer relationships for too long and implode. There is a difference between being a company that only focuses on the profits and being a company that focuses on making worthwhile things that wind up making profits.

Hi Identity Fraud,

It may be easier for you to go back and read that portion of the thread. I was responding to someone who was all over the place. Context is important in this instance.

Thank you.

 

[tech4all]

You're the one who needs to get a clue.

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.

Nope. Tim Cook because CEO in 2011. It's been about 2.5 years now. Much of the success thus far happened under Steve Jobs.

Again, get a clue sir.

 

[mccldwll]

Damn, God save me from working at that company :s

No problem. Burger King? McDonalds?

----------

I fully agree with you. Working for this guy sounds like a nightmarish thing to do.

If you're not up to it, sure. Just have to bring your A game (if you had one).

----------

----------

I don't. The market does.

No Susan. Apparently, you don't understand exactly what the market does. Dray tuned.

----------

I guess we don't get any more leaks from that former WSJ reporter who seemed pretty tied into Apple.

I believe her source was booted (though she claims it was simply good reporting).

----------

Hmm...this profile coming from someone who says Scott Forstall should not have been canned but in the next sentence says Apple Maps was a "fiasco". Sorry can't have it both ways. I doubt I'll be buying this book.

Curious. She's never critical of Forstall.

----------

You define company's success by share price? lolz

SusanK looks for any opportunity to trash Cook. She claims to be a shareholder but that's not how actual shareholders behave.

----------

2013 was a bull run. AAPL is dead money. Institutional investors are selling AAPL.

I am amazed at the sentiment expressed on this site at times. Apple customers should get out if the are unhappy with buggy products. Investors should go away. Boggles the mind.

Apple is not infallible.

You claim to be an AAPL investor. LOL. Sound more like a hedge fund grunt or a Sammy employee.

 

[kingtj]

re: managing successfully

Passive management is a real problem, but I don't think that's what anyone's suggesting happen here?

The best way to manage, IMO, is by focusing on sets of attainable goals and keeping in close communications with the teams who are working towards making them happen.

Someone, earlier, commented on how Jobs demoed the iPhone when the prototype in his hand was so buggy and unstable, much of its functionality had to be basically faked on stage. But then he had a working product in only a few months after that, because he pushed people so hard to deliver that one thing for him.

Knowing Jobs' personality, working for him at that time probably was less than pleasant -- but still, he did things effectively from the standpoint of everyone involved knowing quite clearly what the goal and expectation was.

Passive management doesn't necessarily equate to "being nice" while strong management means you're "difficult and demanding". Passive managers are the ones who don't communicate what's really going on to the team. They make excuses like, "My guys are so bright, they should be able to figure out on their own what's best to do next." They're afraid to let someone go who consistently fails to do their fair share, because they don't want the confrontation. And often, they change the goals around when things aren't working like they planned, frustrating the employees who sense a lack of direction in the company.

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?

 

[claus1225]

it's easy to ask those short and direct questions when you are in power.

 

[tshrimp]

From reading that, I am glad I don't work at Apple.

 

[jav6454]

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.

Demming didn't invent nor have anything to do with the "5 Whys" or where they were developed. "5 Whys" are not a fear tactic, and if you think they are a fear tactic, well then, you lack basic comprehension of a simple concept that has worked great so far for companies like Toyota.

 

[chr1s60]

For the most part, I think Cook has done a great job at Apple since Steve. That said, he is now getting into that area of time when he will really be tested because he can't simply continue with what Steve already had in the works. Now it is Tim's time to put in the work and innovate and take Apple to the next level again.

 

[dansix]

Well, if you work for the greatest tech company in the world, you better work hard and have answers. If you're lazy and you're not doing your job right, you should be replaced. This isn't education. There are no unions. You don't have the same job security to be lazy. It's a competition. You can't make great products by being lazy and/or incompetent. Tim will shine one day I'm sure. He's just getting warmed up. He doesn't have charisma but he gets the job done. That's what should really matter. Steve Jobs wasn't perfect either... he wasn't the best manager... yet he was able to lead well enough to make great products. I think Tim understands that vision, which is why Steve chose him to lead. All I know is Tim understands Apple's vision... and he doesn't compromise for profits.

 

[Ploppypants]

Makes him sound like a bully with a touch of the white collar psychopath. Wouldn't be at all surprised if he is. Not uncommon traits among CEOs and senior execs I deal with.

 

[MRCow]

Apple Inc. is a separate entity. It is not Steve Jobs. Steve has no ongoing responsibilities for Apple Inc after his death.

If I follow your logic the next time on of my light bulbs burns out or there is a power outtage it is Thomas Edison's fault.

You do not follow my logic. There is a clear distinction between a scientific discovery to the creation of an institution and a culture. The first is a fact of nature and the second is an artefact of humanity.

 

[peterdevries]

Passive management is a real problem, but I don't think that's what anyone's suggesting happen here?

-snip-

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post also. Many here misunderstand what is described in the article as management by fear. It's probably from never having worked in such a place or so high in a multinational or large company.

What many here don't realise is that a day for these people only has about 16 hours. That might seem like a lot if your general work day is only 8 hours and some change, but it is not if you manage the most valuable company on the planet or a company of the complexity of Amazon. These people cannot afford to have their time wasted. It might seem ridiculous, but it isn't if you consider the thousands of employees, millions of customers and thousands of investors all relying on you.

I can understand that these people do not want to have their time wasted with people that do not do their work properly try that cannot answer questions. At this level there are no excuses, because you get paid a lot to have that responsibility and to sit at these tables.

I worked with some McKinsey consultants who consult to boards and CEO's of basically every fortune 500 company. These guys get paid to do the most complicated calculations in their head, because there just isn't time to get your spreadsheet out when the CEO asks you what a 2.3% increase in sales would mean in terms of profit. The standard application procedure for McKinsey involves a test similar to GMAT that requires some serious calculation skills. If you can't do the math, you're out.

At this level there are enough people that are willing and able to do the job that CEO's demand, so if you are the "Sorry, I need to be home tomorrow, because the plumber is coming and it just makes sense to work from home", or the "Sorry, I can't answer that question because one of my team-member's cat died" kind of person, than you shouldn't probably work at that level. It basically means you are not able to solve problems or prioritise. These are actual examples from people that I worked with and the result in these cases has been serious delays in project delivery and thousands of dollars of cost to the company.

 

[Nahaz]

In that picture, Cook looks like a badass walking away from an explosion without turning back.

Image

This portrait would go well on the old Russian Flag, like the way they did Ivan Drago in Rocky IV

 

[mabhatter]

Are you implying that Steve Ballmer's strength is business management?

Ballmer would be great if he was running an electric company. He's made lots of money. But Ballmer utterly stifled any world shaking INNOVATION because that got in the way of "winning at making money".

Apple has only been selling iPads for a few years and iPads utterly eclipse MacBooks now. Apple could stop selling Macs and be wildly profitable. Ballmer has utterly failed to "remodel" his company like that. Microsoft still makes its money on the same basic things it did ten even fifteen years ago.

People are afraid of Cook being the same way.