I've been reading Steve Jobs bio. The way he acted, dressed, managed, though of ideas. It seems like a typical manager in a typical company would have fired him. The main guy he worked for, Alan Acorn was not a typical manager.<p>If my premise is true and most managers would have fired Steve Jobs instead of working with him, what does that say about most managers? If this is the case, how do we make sure this doesn't happen to us and our companies?
The only reason it worked for Steve Jobs is that he was Steve Jobs. Almost every other person with that attitude would be, and arguably should be, fired (or at least talked to seriously about it). Someone like that would be extremely detrimental in a team environment. Except in the case where someone truly has demonstrated that their decisions and opinions are genius, most of his behavior would simply not be tolerable. Would you really want to work with someone like that?<p>It's even called out in the biography (I forget if it's a quote or a comment by the author) that he probably could have been just as effective without being as abrasive.
That most managers are average and of average intelligence. That they succeed in their jobs by suppressing change and resisting difference of opinions.<p>We can't make sure this doesn't happen. It's a manager's job to manage human resources and ensure productivity. Once this becomes a numbers game, all cards are on the table.<p>I would even say that this isn't even the manager's fault, but the bottom line. Risk is something that sounds scary to people who want a consistent paycheck.<p>It has nothing to do about Steve Jobs being amazing or whatever, and everything to do about corporate culture as far as him getting fired would be concerned.
Suppose it's a bit off-topic, but would Steve have fired Steve? I suppose the less interesting but more likely answer is he wouldn't have worked for himself.