There's not much to this. The only specific evidence he offers about Jobs's character is "stiffing early Apple employees out of stock options when the company first went public." Which (a) is an inaccurate description, because options were not so much the norm in the 1970s as they are now, and (b) may not have been, and in fact probably wasn't, even his decision.
Other than that, his only basis for the conclusions in this article is something we all know: Jobs was supposed to have been a difficult man.
This article may be correct, in the way a broken clock is twice a day. Jobs may well (a) have been a jerk in a way that would normally make someone ineffective as a manager, and (b) have had other qualities that compensated for that; and maybe (c) the latter qualities were extremely rare. But we are told practically nothing about (a), (b), or (c).
This would have been a better article if he'd just written
"Steve Jobs was successful, but beware of imitating his bad qualities, because most people couldn't get away with behaving like he did."
Well, I knew that Jobs was "supposed to have been a difficult man". But after reading the biography it's pretty clear that this guy had some serious, deep running flaws, character traits that other people could never get away with. Just to name a few, based on the biography, he was pathologically self-centered, a habitual liar, he belittled people in public for his own personal gratification and so on.
Now, not just from a management perspective - Is this something to emulate? Do we want a society where everyone is like this?
In my opinion, people like Jobs need level-headed, strong people around them. Without people who are willing to work with them despite their flaws, guys like Jobs would probably end up in the gutter with a knife in their back.
Everyone lies, most people are self-centered since birth, and his belittling is pretty much non-existent when you compare it to a CEO like Steve Balmer.
I think Jobs was just a guy who had a vision for computers, and knew that he had to be relentless to reach that goal in a short amount of time. I also think Jobs is probably one of the most level-headed people in the tech industry. Check the beginning of this video, very observant and calm, and I don't think he is necessarily as self-centered as you wrote.
The 60 minutes interview gave an anecdote where employees with options were giving some of their own options out to other founding employees without after they went public. When one of the first employees, and a close friend of jobs asked for some options, another founding employee told Jobs that they should help him out, and offered to give out some options if Jobs would match him. Jobs declined, and never gave out any of his options.
While it's certainly his decision to make, I think it's entirely reasonable for people to say he doesn't deserve the worship he's been receiving.
I'm perfectly willing to believe Steve Jobs had a mean streak or whatever, but you can't call it evil when someone refuses to do something no one else does either. Steve Wozniak giving away some of his stock to other Apple employees at the time of the IPO is the only instance I know of that happening. What this story shows is that Wozniak is a saint, not that Jobs is evil.
The article isn't making an argument that he is evil. The argument is that he shouldn't necessarily be put on a pedestal as a person to model your behavour on.
Half way through the biography and there are plenty of more sinister examples of behaviour (e.g. denying paternity).
However, I believe the term is "flawed genius". The world is a better place when a few of them succeed! Of course, an unsuccessful flawed genius is better known as an "unbearable asshole".
I don't understand why anyone would think they should model themselves after Steve Jobs.
Only Steve Jobs could live the life of Steve Jobs, for better or worse. We can learn volumes from his life and work, but wisdom is learning how these lessons apply differently to each of us.
I'd define a role model as someone who helps the world in a repeatable way, i.e. if a lot of people were like the person, the world would be significantly improved.
I think the article, whether successfully or not, tries to show a definition more like that, no "perfection" involved.
A role model is someone who is a model for a role the follower wants to fill. The world doesn't really enter into it, unless the follower is looking to make the world better, as opposed to looking to become fabulously wealthy or inwardly peaceful or remembered for generations or experienced in everything or privy to a secret no one else would know or one of many other possible life goals.
Or that Wozniak was empathetic while Jobs was apathetic towards his coworkers' concerns in this certain instance. Generalizing either of the two as saints or satans based on this instance alone would be quite shallow...in this certain instance.
I may be very wrong, but I have a feeling Jobs was the "dad" and Woz was more like "mom" of the employees. I think this difference was Apple's greatest asset in their first year.
I have run some two-headed departments and it's my preferred way to manage.
Woz, a decent human being, likely. But saint? Are any of us perfect? What does perfect even mean? Is it even possible? We shouldn't tag humans with supernatural labels.
Yes, jumping right to WWII might be a bit hyperbolic, and the grammar here is a bit shaky, but I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. 'Everybody's doing it' is never an acceptable excuse for bad behavior.
An act can be "bad", or "injust", but describing it as evil is bullshit. Evil, for one, is a theological term, that doesn't explain anything. It's like saying "the satan made me do it".
Like, it wasn't because of being "evil" when people in the US discriminated (and exterminated) Indians and enslaved blacks.
They didn't do it because they were "evil people", they did it because their societal norms and prevailing ideology permitted it and even encouraged it. And the norms got such because of catering to various collective interests (like, taking away the indian land, exploiting cheap labor).
The article is dead on from one perspective, he was not the rest of the 99.99999% of the planet. So what worked for or was allowed for him simply won't work for anyone who's not paid the price.
If anyone has to gain the position to figure out what it took to be him.. try building just one company that was not just a quick flip.. try working out one extremely difficult idea against certain approaching defeat.
Building insanely great things will push you limits that the rest of the planet, to put it respectfully, does not even know exists. It also produces incredible shear stress that will make you appear as a complete psychopath to many normal people.. including employees, co-founders etc.. at times.. if your level of care is past what they have about the game.
" Now while hopefully the work appeared inevitable. Appeared simple, and easy, it really cost. It cost us all, didn’t it? But you know what? It cost him most. He cared the most. "
Fair enough, but it sounds like you're critiquing the author's writing style rather than their point, which I think is a reasonable one.
Personally, I think there's a bigger lesson to be learned though: you shouldn't emulate anyone except yourself. Otherwise, you're doomed to a life of being a poor impression of someone else.
I couldn't disagree more. "Myself", insofar as I want to "be myself", describes my values rather than my habits. I often meet inspirational people who are very talented in ways I admire, and usually this is because of their habits, their wisdom, facts they've learned the hard way.
I do my best to notice how they've achieved this, and imitate whatever meshes with my personality, my priorities, and my values.
Other than that, his only basis for the conclusions in this article is something we all know: Jobs was supposed to have been a difficult man.
This article may be correct, in the way a broken clock is twice a day. Jobs may well (a) have been a jerk in a way that would normally make someone ineffective as a manager, and (b) have had other qualities that compensated for that; and maybe (c) the latter qualities were extremely rare. But we are told practically nothing about (a), (b), or (c).
This would have been a better article if he'd just written "Steve Jobs was successful, but beware of imitating his bad qualities, because most people couldn't get away with behaving like he did."