A glaring point that the article seems to forget is that Bezos, Jobs, et. al., are <i>founder</i> CEOs. Not one of the individuals mentioned was a hire. I think that's an important distinction, especially with respect to the author's points on creativity.<p><i>"... remember that when Jobs returned to Apple in 1996, ... Let’s just say he didn’t have the benefit of the doubt. What he did have: the founder’s courage to innovate despite the doubters"</i><p>from: <a href="http://bhorowitz.com/2010/04/28/why-we-prefer-founding-ceos/" rel="nofollow">http://bhorowitz.com/2010/04/28/why-we-prefer-founding-ceos/</a><p>Edit to add quote
If Steve Jobs applied for your job by submitting his resume and waiting for you to invite him in for an interview, he literally wouldn't be Steve Jobs in any meaningful way. He would just be a guy named Steve who didn't finish college and seems to maybe want a job. So the whole premise is nonsense.<p>The better question is, "if Steve Jobs knocked on your door at 2am and jumped into a long speech about how your industry is begging to be disrupted, and how he is simply so manically focused on creating an incredible product in this space that he can't sleep and he'd probably work for free if that's what it came to" would you hire him?<p>I think most hiring managers would take a chance on that guy.
This title twists the quote. It's asking the reader a rhetorical question whether they would hire Steve Jobs but immediately lists Bezos and other innovative founders. I don't think Steve could get a decent job even when he was young nor did he seek one.
It's really quite simple, and in a sense I don't think big companies are behaving irrationally:<p>It's really hard to judge the potential of odd, creative people. There's a million people running around who talk like Steve Jobs did decades ago. Think about all the idea-people and 'mavens' you know.<p>Granted, I think the entire hiring system isn't even close to optimized and could be greatly improved.
The question really translates to: why companies are not taking risks today? The bigger risks are - the larger would be the profits from exploiting the risks. Creativity and innovation are huge risks but you you need to take them if you want to be successful today. "me too" strategy won't take you far. Apple is the best example for this point. Remember Steve Jobs announcing "year of copycats"?
"And it’s not clear America would benefit even if it tried maintaining these lower-skilled jobs."<p>Myopic on many levels. A week in an industrial fabrication shop would change the author's tune regarding skill levels required for modern manufacturing jobs.
What I find ironic is that in order to work for Apple today, you need a spotless academic record since gradeschool. I doubt very much that Apple would hire a Reed College dropout today.
<i>The problem starts with how Boards of Directors (and management teams) select – incorrectly, it appears – our business leaders...</i><p>And as it happens, recently there has been debate about successors to Steve Jobs.
It's funny how the points stated in this article will be so true for a Microsoft hiring manager. No disrespect intended.
Disclaimer: I was an MS employee till last month.