Interesting Blog Post About Steve Jobs

[Michael Colton]

I think the point being made Ray is that 'success' of leadership, as she is describing it, has very little to do with the decisions you make. Proper management, successful business, innovative ideas, all of these things have nothing to do with leadership as she is conceptualizing it - it is simply the ability to lead people. They follow you, your persona, your communication, your 'leadership.' You can become a notable figurehead that instills the will to follow in the people below you - as she is conceptualizing it, that is leadership. It has nothing to do with managerial success, business success itself, etc. It is simply one's talent in 'leading' - where you are going is irrelevant to the category in this sense.

 

[willwallace]

When leadership gets to the point of someone being almost worshipped, you run into problems. It can become a cult-like mentality where the leader can do no wrong. In such a situation you may be considered a "good leader", but blind obedience and obsequious behavior by underlings doesn't necessarily make you a good leader, unless your goal is to start a new "religion" based on others fawning over your every word.

 

[Michael Colton]

When leadership gets to the point of someone being almost worshipped, you run into problems. It can become a cult-like mentality where the leader can do no wrong. In such a situation you may be considered a "good leader", but blind obedience and obsequious behavior by underlings doesn't necessarily make you a good leader, unless your goal is to start a new "religion" based on others fawning over your every word.

But they are certainly leading and certainly good at it. Whether they lead people anywhere worth going to is a different sort of question, I think. One can greatly lead people straight off a cliff and maintain the 'greatly lead' bit.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

When leadership gets to the point of someone being almost worshipped, you run into problems. It can become a cult-like mentality where the leader can do no wrong. In such a situation you may be considered a "good leader", but blind obedience and obsequious behavior by underlings doesn't necessarily make you a good leader, unless your goal is to start a new "religion" based on others fawning over your every word.

Exactly - and, if you think about it, it's where most cults (and, indeed many religions, but let's not go there) started.

It comes down to the relationship between the leader and their followers and how much the followers question the leader or simply buy in.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I would be grateful if we could try and keep to the original post topic - some replies come across as rants and invective, rather than seeking to add anything constructive to the discussion.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

it is simply the ability to lead people.

But I doubt Steve Jobs really had that at all. The Consumers and Press swallowing the Hype isn't an example of efficacy of leadership.
Is simply the ability to create a cult a useful Leadership attribute? I don't think so. With a good Leader Apple would have a better future and be more successful with out the pain people working for Jobs had. What he achieved was mostly luck, nothing to do with Leadership.

 

[Brian G Turner]

What he achieved was mostly luck, nothing to do with Leadership.

Ray, luck plays a part in any success, but nobody - nobody - builds a worldwide brand and multiple instantly recognisable products, and can sit on $50 billion in cash, through blind luck and bad leadership.

You may have done things different - other people may have - but generic criticisms offer no value proposition to the discussion.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The ability to create a cult - if we read for that, a following - might be the key attribute of a leader. Whether it's useful or not is a different argument, I think. And, in the absence of any evidence against Jobs' leadership capabilities (saying a good leader might have done better isn't evidence but personal opinion) I have to assume that we are agreeing he could communicate, gain followers and had a degree of charisma.

In terms of the original blog a lot of what has been said feeds into it: the ratio of the leader's persona vs that of the team may depend on the level of the leaders' capability.

To give a UK example - Alan Sugar is the leader (in my opinion not a particularly exceptional one, but he still has the capabilities) and Nick Hewer is the follower. But Nick is charismatic in his own right, and has most of the capabilites. In this case there are two parameters which make him a follower - imho - which are that he buys into Sugar's vision and that, perhaps, his charisma is not as high as Sugar's and, therefore, does not challenge him. But the key difference is that the leader holds the vision and the follower buys into that vision rather than one of their own. They might feed into the vision and enrich it but the holder of the vision is the leader and this, too, may be where Jobs is so effective - his vision for the organisation/products etc was the strongest.

 

[willwallace]

But they are certainly leading and certainly good at it. Whether they lead people anywhere worth going to is a different sort of question, I think. One can greatly lead people straight off a cliff and maintain the 'greatly lead' bit.

Technically, yes, you are correct. This takes us then to the point of where the leader is directing his followers. Is his vision inspired by a desire to improve the condition of others, by making a better product, for example(which, incidentally, produces greater profits) or is it merely getting others to follow him/her in order to feed their ego? Probably have to have elements of both, I would imagine, in order to inspire others to follow your lead and actually get things accomplished.

So some egomania would appear to be an essential ingredient in a successful leader. Not surprising, and I would conclude it depends on the extent that such a leader can sublimate their personal urges to be worshipped versus the good they can actually get done, that defines them, in the end, as a good or bad leader. In my opinion, or course.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Technically, yes, you are correct. This takes us then to the point of where the leader is directing his followers. Is his vision inspired by a desire to improve the condition of others, by making a better product, for example(which, incidentally, produces greater profits) or is it merely getting others to follow him/her in order to feed their ego? Probably have to have elements of both, I would imagine, in order to inspire others to follow your lead and actually get things accomplished.

So some egomania would appear to be an essential ingredient in a successful leader. Not surprising, and I would conclude it depends on the extent that such a leader can sublimate their personal urges to be worshipped versus the good they can actually get done, that defines them, in the end, as a good or bad leader. In my opinion, or course.

I think there has to be a huge belief in the vision they aspire to, whatever that might be. Which means it may not be egomaniacal but altruistic (someone like Mahatma Gandhi, for instance). The getting others to follow is a means to achieve the vision the leader holds, as opposed to seeking personal affirmation. Of course, how much the vision and the person are separate depends on what the vision is and what the leader hopes to get from the vision.

 

[willwallace]

I think there has to be a huge belief in the vision they aspire to, whatever that might be. Which means it may not be egomaniacal but altruistic (someone like Mahatma Gandhi, for instance). The getting others to follow is a means to achieve the vision the leader holds, as opposed to seeking personal affirmation. Of course, how much the vision and the person are separate depends on what the vision is and what the leader hopes to get from the vision.

A very rare person, Gandhi. You're completely right about what you say about him, Springs, as well as the others like him throughout history. However, I unfortunately believe people like Gandhi are the exception to my statement above. Bill Gates was mentioned earlier in this thread, and his philanthropic work has made him more of a leader, in my mind, than any accomplishments he had at Microsoft.

I would say that when it comes to running a successful business and being a so-called leader, my statement more often holds true. When you get into helping the plight of your fellow humans, then your statement about altruistic vision takes over, and I believe that is when a person truly is a leader.

If a president or Prime minister works whole-heartedly to improve the life of those in their country, solely because they believe that it is the right thing to do, and even at the expense of their popularity, I call that person a true leader. If, on the other hand, they do things for their own personal recognition, then I would not call them such. In this case, as in many others, there is a balancing act, egomania versus altruism.

 

[Michael Colton]

I am not sure what you mean by the 'true story.' There have been countless articles and books written about Jobs' cruelty to those around him, his tumultous personality, his insane New Age beliefs, and all sorts of other things that are not flattering. And it is also very common to hear people say that Apple is a company built almost entirely on marketing. I am not sure what 'true story' you are referencing.

But that is sort of besides the point - their business ventures are not particularly relevant to the question of leadership. When you say that the iPod was successful not due to leadership but due to content deals, that is still neither here nor there to the leadership discussion at hand - as far as I can tell, anyway.

And as far as the whole 'deal with the music industry' thing goes, there has been quite a bit written about how that was achieved.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

@willwallace If you're interested in the principle of leadership being ethicallly led in business I'd reccommend Steve Covey's Principle-centred leadership. It's an easy read and interesting in the belief he espouses that you can be a leader in the workplace and guided by your own personal ethics. I refer to him a lot. And many of the leaders I work with -primarily voluntary sector, so I may be spoiled a little - are motivated by wanting to do the right thing, within the constraints of running a successful business (or no one gets served by the leader - people need paid, after all....)

I agree about Bill Gates - I picked up with it earlier in the thread. He and his wife have a clear vision for the foundation and the passion which comes from such a vision.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

There have been countless articles and books written about Jobs' cruelty to those around him, his tumultous personality, his insane New Age beliefs, and all sorts of other things that are not flattering. And it is also very common to hear people say that Apple is a company built almost entirely on marketing. I am not sure what 'true story' you are referencing.

Yes. But strangely all this seems to get ignored with Steve Jobs regarded as the reason for Apple's cash pile. It's more despite Steve Jobs ... winning the Lottery is an apt comparison.

 

[willwallace]

Much as I personally dislike Apple. you have to give Jobs some credit. He was only back less than a year in 1997, after a 10 year absence, when MS invested the money to keep Apple going. By the next year, 1998, they were again a profitable company.

Yes, a lot of things Jobs did were lucky in one way or another. However, there have been many others who were in the right place at the right time, and made the wrong decision. He did have a vision for the company, and they made a boatload of money following that vision. Luck did play it's part, but so did his drive.

 

[willwallace]

@willwallace If you're interested in the principle of leadership being ethicallly led in business I'd reccommend Steve Covey's Principle-centred leadership. It's an easy read and interesting in the belief he espouses that you can be a leader in the workplace and guided by your own personal ethics. I refer to him a lot. And many of the leaders I work with -primarily voluntary sector, so I may be spoiled a little - are motivated by wanting to do the right thing, within the constraints of running a successful business (or no one gets served by the leader - people need paid, after all....)

Well, you talked me into it, the Kindle version was only $3.99USD, so it's now waiting it's turn on the carousel of books to be read...