I know I just ridiculed the whole Tim vs. Steve thing...
Steve Jobs and Walt Disney were very comparable personalities - charismatic, visionary founders of companies legendary for the quality and creativity of their products. Both have leadership styles that might be considered "Demanding Daddy," people capable of insulting and denigrating subordinates in order to bring out their best. It's a very tricky technique, as they risk simply alienating their subordinates and driving them away (I've worked for a few people who possessed all of the rough edges, with none of the redeeming qualities). If we look at the histories of both companies, we'll find examples of disgruntled ex-employees who couldn't stand the "heat." We tend to ignore those, since the success stories stand so tall. The end justifies the means, and all that. Still, both Walt and Steve spent far more time encouraging and inspiring their staffs than they ever spent browbeating them. Stories of that sort simply don't circulate with the same gossip mill enthusiasm.
To this day, screening rooms at animation studios are known as "sweat boxes," a term coined at Disney to describe the anxiety spawned by Walt's screening room behavior. They use that term at Pixar - tell me Steve wasn't fully cognizant of all of this, and didn't emulate Walt to some extent.
After Walt Disney's death, his company floundered and failed for nearly 20 years. It took the arrival of Michael Eisner to turn things around. Michael was definitely not Walt - his management style is better described as "Imperial." However, soon after arriving at the company, I believe Eisner deliberately emulated Disney in order to gain the respect of the Imagineering department. They were working on a theme park attraction, ExtraTerrorestrial Alien Encounter. Prior to its opening, Eisner was brought in to try it out. Basically, he ripped into the creative team, Walt-style, demanded they do better, and walked out. Imagineering went back to work, and next time the results received Michael's blessing. As far as I know, this was a one-time tantrum, but Imagineering (and everyone else in the corporate rumor mill) got the message loud and clear: Michael Eisner was capable of filling Walt's shoes.
The "problem" with Tim Cook is that there are no equivalent stories. Likely, if he had done the same, it would have been a shock and scandal, as Tim had already spent a successful decade at the company without exhibiting such behavior.
To switch from animation to military examples, Steve was a George S. Patton, Tim is a Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Contrary to opinions often expressed here, Apple has not floundered around after Steve's death. Revenues did not plummet, product reviews did not turn negative, the customers and staff did not abandon ship. The company continues to thrive, in large part because Steve prepared the company for his passing (something Walt did not do). Steve knew exactly who Tim Cook is, and hand-picked him as his successor. He didn't do that with the intention of harming the company he built, to the detriment of his family's shareholdings. It was definitely not, "Après moi, le déluge!"
So get over it, people. The Steve Jobs lead a large company that was on its way to becoming a huge company, and picked someone capable of running a huge company. Leaders of huge companies cannot be as hands-on as are leaders of smaller companies (and Disney, too, was a much smaller company in Walt's day), and are rarely as colorful.
Steve Jobs and Walt Disney were very comparable personalities - charismatic, visionary founders of companies legendary for the quality and creativity of their products. Both have leadership styles that might be considered "Demanding Daddy," people capable of insulting and denigrating subordinates in order to bring out their best. It's a very tricky technique, as they risk simply alienating their subordinates and driving them away (I've worked for a few people who possessed all of the rough edges, with none of the redeeming qualities). If we look at the histories of both companies, we'll find examples of disgruntled ex-employees who couldn't stand the "heat." We tend to ignore those, since the success stories stand so tall. The end justifies the means, and all that. Still, both Walt and Steve spent far more time encouraging and inspiring their staffs than they ever spent browbeating them. Stories of that sort simply don't circulate with the same gossip mill enthusiasm.
To this day, screening rooms at animation studios are known as "sweat boxes," a term coined at Disney to describe the anxiety spawned by Walt's screening room behavior. They use that term at Pixar - tell me Steve wasn't fully cognizant of all of this, and didn't emulate Walt to some extent.
After Walt Disney's death, his company floundered and failed for nearly 20 years. It took the arrival of Michael Eisner to turn things around. Michael was definitely not Walt - his management style is better described as "Imperial." However, soon after arriving at the company, I believe Eisner deliberately emulated Disney in order to gain the respect of the Imagineering department. They were working on a theme park attraction, ExtraTerrorestrial Alien Encounter. Prior to its opening, Eisner was brought in to try it out. Basically, he ripped into the creative team, Walt-style, demanded they do better, and walked out. Imagineering went back to work, and next time the results received Michael's blessing. As far as I know, this was a one-time tantrum, but Imagineering (and everyone else in the corporate rumor mill) got the message loud and clear: Michael Eisner was capable of filling Walt's shoes.
The "problem" with Tim Cook is that there are no equivalent stories. Likely, if he had done the same, it would have been a shock and scandal, as Tim had already spent a successful decade at the company without exhibiting such behavior.
To switch from animation to military examples, Steve was a George S. Patton, Tim is a Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Contrary to opinions often expressed here, Apple has not floundered around after Steve's death. Revenues did not plummet, product reviews did not turn negative, the customers and staff did not abandon ship. The company continues to thrive, in large part because Steve prepared the company for his passing (something Walt did not do). Steve knew exactly who Tim Cook is, and hand-picked him as his successor. He didn't do that with the intention of harming the company he built, to the detriment of his family's shareholdings. It was definitely not, "Après moi, le déluge!"
So get over it, people. The Steve Jobs lead a large company that was on its way to becoming a huge company, and picked someone capable of running a huge company. Leaders of huge companies cannot be as hands-on as are leaders of smaller companies (and Disney, too, was a much smaller company in Walt's day), and are rarely as colorful.
