It frustrates me to no end to see people apologize for the abusive behavior of powerful people. If this engineer can be expected to find a better font, his boss can be expected to express what he found so unacceptable in an actual critique.
Yep, apparently harassment, verbal assault and abuse is just seen as yet another management technique these days and engineers will apologize for it, which is a paradox in the era of "safe spaces" and "code of conducts".
I really don't think it's a new thing. If anything, it's less acceptable than ever. Even in the military, I think they've toned it down from the Full Metal Jacket-style abuse.
What I've seen is that people who take it up with HR get blacklisted after multiple complaints and will not find much success. You need perseverance to take every blow and still stand on your feet.
In my opinion, anger is an excellent short-term motivator. Jobs probably wanted something done that day or that week and had to get pissed to motivate everyone to work extra hours to get it done. It certainly does come with a long-term price though of people thinking you're a jerk and burning out on your anger.
So, it depends on what your goals are. But, if you don't mind burning through staff and relationships, getting pissed will probably get you more short-term bang for your buck than being kind and calm.
What if it is just lack of self-control while the rest of us is expected be able to keep our emotions in control. Seriously. Had I unleashed like that, I would be seen as hysterical.
And also, what if letting someone unleash on you is not a sign of strength, but simply sign of being weaker not being stand up for yourself
And also, what if someone need to be yelled at to do good work does not make him good engineer, really.
And also, what if long term crunch is ineffective and short term overtime should not require yelling.
What if it is possible to build large company while not being perfect and it is the "not perfect" thing about job.
> Jobs probably wanted something done that day or that week and had to get pissed to motivate everyone..
That's possible, but I think "Jobs got angry because he angered easily, regardless of whether it was necessary to motivate people" would be the more parsimonious explanation.
Anger actually works. In the short run, at least. Maybe in the long run too.
Humans are actually perfectly capable of dealing with natural human-to-human interactions that aren't programmed by arbiters of empathy. This is because the species was the product of evolution, if not intelligently designed.
These stories about Jobs often describe him as an oracle. He clearly helped produced uniquely excellent products (just by virtue of their success), but was he ever the ideator? Or was his main gift sifting great work from everything else?
I think it's important what one believes in and what one pushes towards. Sometimes, I don't care who came up with an idea, I care who pushed it forward because they thought it was worth it and they believed in that idea.
He copied, refined, and simplified, with a rare sense of taste that was often missing in the original projects. (E.g. Xerox Star vs Mac. The Star was a much better computer, the Mac was a much better consumer product.)
He was also an abusive narcissist. The narcissistic drive to be visibly superior to other people was a core motivation for him.
Someone less driven - or possibly damaged - wouldn't have been nearly as passionate about the end result.
It's an open question if it's possible to do insanely great work without any dysfunction at all. Narcissistic abuse and management-as-ego-boost is such a common thing in US (and US influenced) business culture that it's almost impossible to imagine a corporate culture with no trace of it.
I have a suspicion that a more easy-going culture would be better in some ways, especially with humane long-term strategy, but might lack some colour.
It would be good to find out one day if the trade-off is acceptable. (It might well be, depending on your strategy horizon.)
When I was at Apple, I once heard Steve describe his roll within the company as "hire the best people and say 'no' a lot". Also, behind closed doors, Steve swore a LOT. In other words, him calling something "dog shit" was not at all an unusual or unexpected utterance. I think if your only experience of him is the "Steve"-notes and press interviews, then this story probably comes across a bit differently than it did in reality for Ken.
Weird take. But here goes. Jobs was a jerk. But -- speaking for myself here and many of my colleagues -- we engineers are, ourselves, a pretty egotistical bunch. And when operating from a place of ego, it's just a lot harder to get great work done. If someone can simultaneously (a) crush your ego while (b) implicitly telling you that you are, in spite of your errors, capable of great work... well, some great things can happen. It no longer becomes an issue about impressing someone (Jobs was notoriously difficult to please) -- it instead becomes a matter of producing excellent work.
But what do I know. I have several friends that worked for jobs directly. And he could in fact be a jerk. I have heard him privately described as needing to piss on things. But as a friend of mine said -- "he almost always was right."
Incidentally, this position I am taking is to some degree a somewhat Zen / Tibetan Buddhist position. That is, that dissolution of the ego is the most important thing for our well-being. And that teachers, but also anyone, really, that challenges us could actually -- if seen from a pretty advanced perspective -- be seen to help us wake up. To quote a zen master, Torei Enji:
"If by any chance such a person should turn against us,
become a sworn enemy and abuse and persecute us,
we should sincerely bow down with humble language, in reverent belief that he or she is the merciful avatar of Buddha,
who uses devices to emancipate us from sinful karma
that has been produced and accumulated upon ourselves
by our own egoistic delusion and attachment
through countless cycles of kalpas."
This is not to say that Jobs was a "Buddha"... but that, perhaps, anyone who challenges us in a tremendous way... may be in a way helping direct us to waking up, being our best "self."
Usually I agree with this of thanking those who trigger us and showing us where we need to grow.
There is a shadow to it though in that it's not always a rosy outcome when people are challenged continuously and in stressful situations. To quote Carl Jung: "the dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy".
For every story of growth, I'm sure there are a few of people quitting who couldn't take the verbal abuse.
Jobs’ approach is to inculcate a deep-seated insecurity that drives people to do better work. This is quite a bit different from dissolution of the ego, because it very much depends on the subject having an ego to manipulate.
I think about this a lot in relation to my own startup experience.
Though I'd never claim to be remotely as talented as Jobs (and the evidence of that is borne out in my decidedly modest startup career success so far), I was the person in my team who filled the Jobs-like role of being a product+strategy lead alongside specialist programmers and designers.
I knew they were capable of brilliant things and I saw it as my role to push them to achieve their best, and sometimes I could be brutal with my words and their delivery.
In the 4-5 years since I stopped working with that team, I've done a huge amount of personal development/emotional healing work (which could be seen as a version of "ego dissolution" or "shadow integration" work), and I now look back on those days and think "man I was such a jerk to those guys".
And I feel that were I to lead a startup team again, I'd hope never to treat people like that, and be far more kind and nurturing to those I work with.
Yet we achieved some huge things in those days, and that company lives on, continuing to achieve great things, thanks in big part to the solid foundations we laid back then.
So whilst I'd never want to be an outright asshole to people, I'm unsure that you can get great outcomes while being nice to people all the time either. And I sure know that it's when I've been on the receiving end of uncomfortable truths delivered harshly that I've most clearly gotten the message that I needed to improve myself.
I find it hard to reconcile the fact that Jobs seemed to spend so much time studying Buddhism and practising meditation and other spiritual practices, presumably seeking emotional peace and balance within himself, yet was still such a tyrant as a company leader.
I often wonder whether it's even possible to build a company that makes products as good as Apple's, whilst being kinder and warmer to people than Jobs was.
I'm sure there's a healthy balance there somewhere, or at least I really hope there is, but I'm yet to figure out what it is.
I'm pretty sure it's possible. My best sports coach was demanding and direct, but never insulting or abusive. It's not about niceness, per se. It's about speaking honestly to the objective aspects work while always valuing the person. You can be emotional and mad, just don't take it out on people, and if you lose it, own up to it.
Another example. My old CTO had a frank conversation with me about my management style. I cried because I knew I wasn't doing the kind of job I wanted to do. He never said a single word to me that was abusive or out of line. I didn't agree with every word he said, but I took his constructive criticism to heart.
You don't have to be an asshole to have a tough conversation with people. Reading this thread, it's so frustrating that people seem to think the two things are the same.
Comments like this can really spoil discussion threads. There's nothing for anyone to learn here, it just panders to people's pre-established positions.
Whether or not his cancer was so easily treatable (experts have written articles disputing this), "arrogance and stupidity" is a rough thing to say about someone facing a life-threatening diagnosis, dealing with all the fear and uncertainty that goes with that, and having to make a call on how best to confront it.
The paternity thing was of course a black mark on his legacy, but he was young, and we just don't know what kind of fears and unresolved issues might have been influencing his behaviour at that stage. Whatever the case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The whole point of this discussion topic is to take a nuanced view of Jobs' conduct in a particular context. It could do without rage-bait comments like this.
I am replying to a comment is basically saying "hey he was a fucked up abuser, but he was right some of the time, and he was rich, so he must have been doing something right, right? "
If we, as a humanity, are to stay on this world long-term, we have to create a society where humanity is more important than success and money. We can't idolize abusers, manipulators and psychopaths because they are successful CEOs.
Your summary is a gross oversimplification of what was a very thoughtful comment.
Like I said, the comment you replied to, and the original article, are valuable for their nuance. Your replies are deliberately lacking in nuance and therefore derail the discussion.
Nobody is focusing on how "rich" or "successful" he was; in this discussion people are only talking about how he led his company to build many different products that many people care about and find extremely useful.
As you point out, humanity has many important challenges to solve, and in order to solve them we need leaders who can get results.
I can agree with you that it would be ideal if those leaders were good-natured people who treat others well.
Finding the right balance between getting results and treating people well is an important, complex topic that needs to be discussed with care, not drowned in rage.
Edit: For what it's worth, in the past 24 hours I've posted another comment defending people's right to criticise Elon Musk and invoking The Emperor's New Clothes as a demonstration of why it's important to be free to criticise powerful people, no matter how much they claim to be on a mission to "save the world".
So I'm not against criticism of successful people. I just like it to be substantive, and of the kind that promotes interesting discussions and generates valuable new insights.
There's an important difference between criticizing a person and criticizing someone's work. The work can be iterated on and improved through additional effort. If your criticism comes off as being directed at the person it can have very demotivational effects. Also, not everyone is looking out for the subtlety of where the criticism is directed. So it's best to make the distinction clear.
Imagine that your boss told you straight to your face that your project is “dog shit.” Next, imagine that this boss is Steve Jobs. That’s what happened to me when I was working as the principal engineer of iPhone software during Apple’s golden years.
What was the right way for me to react? It would have been a bad idea for me to agree with Steve, raising the question of why I would offer him inferior work. But it would have done no good to disagree either, unless I was willing to enter into an on-the-spot debate with a famously mercurial CEO—and at that moment, I wasn’t.
The answer is easy. Immediately tell your boss that he is using inappropriate language, stop the conversation, and report him to HR. I'm pretty sure this is what Apple's official policy for this sort of situations tells you to do.
It would be nice if it was that easy. Unfortunately, it's far too easy for HR to give the boss a pass, especially when the accuser is below them (and considered less important to the company).
And it's not too difficult for that boss to find ways to get you fired if they feel betrayed by you reporting them. Giving you impossible deadlines, tasks you aren't well suited for, dropping hints to other people that you're not performing well, etc. Corporate politics are ugly and are designed to get around HR.
Or, maybe HR takes your side, who knows, but I think a lot of people are afraid to report out of fear for their jobs.
Since when calling dog shit "dog shit" is "inappropriate language". People these days are all winners and can't face the reality it seems.
Also he asks what is the right way to react? To agree or to disagree. :)))) I just can't stop laughing. In his narrow mind these are the only options and they are both wrong! A true engineer will just ask why? and then shut up and listen. But these days everybody has an opinion. My opinion is that Earth is flat. There you go.
Most likely what will happen is not what you think.
They'll do nothing and successice complaints will remove you from a role which requires you interfacing with the CEO and then someone else who is capable of taking these blows will get the compesation and influence you had when you were in that role.
It's a balancing act, you can't have everything your way.
When i first worked in Finland for a very successful mobile game development company, the project manager told me, whatever you are working on is complete shit, we can't afford you to be wasting our money on this. Every single minute you spend in arguing for your idea is paid by us which is true.
After that i got a blow to my ego and started doing what manager told me to. Looking back, i was really wasting their money and once i got blow to my ego, my productivity drastically increased.
I used to be fast learning workholic and yes, i need constant blows to my ego to prevent me from derailing myself into oblivion. So, i would have respect Steve jobs, if he would have been asshole to me.
Edit: I simply detailed my personal experience, so I don't understand your downvotes.
Essentially, people can be dicks and non-dicks, while simultaneously being givers or takers. Nobody likes a taker, even if they're nice, because that person doesn't help one grow. On the other hand, someone can be a real dick, but in a "giving" way that helps achieve a better outcome for both individuals.
In the case of Jobs, one could argue that his personality was justified not only because great work came out of it, but also because the people doing that work became the best version of themselves in the process. If someone is capable of great work and they produce good work, there's a certain kindness to telling them that's not acceptable. But saying the exact same thing to someone who's less capable can be mean.
A psychologically abusive relationship is a rollercoaster, with punishment and then intermittent reinforcement of kindness when you “behave.” This means the body is going through its own turmoil, with high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, paired with dopamine when given affection as a reward.
I am a masocist, i wouldn't be in development getting insulted by a lifeless computer everyday if i was normal.
Anyone who insults me and motivates to offer my best, gets my respect and best work. Heck, i would work for more hours if you can offer me such cortisol+dopamine effect which comes from such treatment.
Think about this. Who struggles with a lifeless computer when they only get the sufferings and frustration which comes with it?
Swearing at me is the least you could do to provoke any response.
I like Steve Jobs and I've yet to find the CEOs who are like him. This is probably why there is no other apple.
By saying "Jobs did it, but it's kind of ok", the author is giving license to every self-styled Jobs wannabe that thinks they are headed for greatness.
Jerks should be called out as jerks, no matter how much success or failure they have had. Success and decency as a human being are orthogonal.
48 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 93.8 ms ] threadAnd, really, a reason to look for another company.
How is debasing someone's work a more effective way of motivating better future work than simply explaining clearly what you need improved?
Angry words are necessarily going to come across as personal no matter how much you want them to mean something else.
So, it depends on what your goals are. But, if you don't mind burning through staff and relationships, getting pissed will probably get you more short-term bang for your buck than being kind and calm.
And also, what if letting someone unleash on you is not a sign of strength, but simply sign of being weaker not being stand up for yourself
And also, what if someone need to be yelled at to do good work does not make him good engineer, really.
And also, what if long term crunch is ineffective and short term overtime should not require yelling.
What if it is possible to build large company while not being perfect and it is the "not perfect" thing about job.
That's possible, but I think "Jobs got angry because he angered easily, regardless of whether it was necessary to motivate people" would be the more parsimonious explanation.
Humans are actually perfectly capable of dealing with natural human-to-human interactions that aren't programmed by arbiters of empathy. This is because the species was the product of evolution, if not intelligently designed.
He was also an abusive narcissist. The narcissistic drive to be visibly superior to other people was a core motivation for him.
Someone less driven - or possibly damaged - wouldn't have been nearly as passionate about the end result.
It's an open question if it's possible to do insanely great work without any dysfunction at all. Narcissistic abuse and management-as-ego-boost is such a common thing in US (and US influenced) business culture that it's almost impossible to imagine a corporate culture with no trace of it.
I have a suspicion that a more easy-going culture would be better in some ways, especially with humane long-term strategy, but might lack some colour.
It would be good to find out one day if the trade-off is acceptable. (It might well be, depending on your strategy horizon.)
But what do I know. I have several friends that worked for jobs directly. And he could in fact be a jerk. I have heard him privately described as needing to piss on things. But as a friend of mine said -- "he almost always was right."
Incidentally, this position I am taking is to some degree a somewhat Zen / Tibetan Buddhist position. That is, that dissolution of the ego is the most important thing for our well-being. And that teachers, but also anyone, really, that challenges us could actually -- if seen from a pretty advanced perspective -- be seen to help us wake up. To quote a zen master, Torei Enji:
"If by any chance such a person should turn against us, become a sworn enemy and abuse and persecute us, we should sincerely bow down with humble language, in reverent belief that he or she is the merciful avatar of Buddha, who uses devices to emancipate us from sinful karma that has been produced and accumulated upon ourselves by our own egoistic delusion and attachment through countless cycles of kalpas."
This is not to say that Jobs was a "Buddha"... but that, perhaps, anyone who challenges us in a tremendous way... may be in a way helping direct us to waking up, being our best "self."
There is a shadow to it though in that it's not always a rosy outcome when people are challenged continuously and in stressful situations. To quote Carl Jung: "the dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy".
For every story of growth, I'm sure there are a few of people quitting who couldn't take the verbal abuse.
Though I'd never claim to be remotely as talented as Jobs (and the evidence of that is borne out in my decidedly modest startup career success so far), I was the person in my team who filled the Jobs-like role of being a product+strategy lead alongside specialist programmers and designers.
I knew they were capable of brilliant things and I saw it as my role to push them to achieve their best, and sometimes I could be brutal with my words and their delivery.
In the 4-5 years since I stopped working with that team, I've done a huge amount of personal development/emotional healing work (which could be seen as a version of "ego dissolution" or "shadow integration" work), and I now look back on those days and think "man I was such a jerk to those guys".
And I feel that were I to lead a startup team again, I'd hope never to treat people like that, and be far more kind and nurturing to those I work with.
Yet we achieved some huge things in those days, and that company lives on, continuing to achieve great things, thanks in big part to the solid foundations we laid back then.
So whilst I'd never want to be an outright asshole to people, I'm unsure that you can get great outcomes while being nice to people all the time either. And I sure know that it's when I've been on the receiving end of uncomfortable truths delivered harshly that I've most clearly gotten the message that I needed to improve myself.
I find it hard to reconcile the fact that Jobs seemed to spend so much time studying Buddhism and practising meditation and other spiritual practices, presumably seeking emotional peace and balance within himself, yet was still such a tyrant as a company leader.
I often wonder whether it's even possible to build a company that makes products as good as Apple's, whilst being kinder and warmer to people than Jobs was.
I'm sure there's a healthy balance there somewhere, or at least I really hope there is, but I'm yet to figure out what it is.
Another example. My old CTO had a frank conversation with me about my management style. I cried because I knew I wasn't doing the kind of job I wanted to do. He never said a single word to me that was abusive or out of line. I didn't agree with every word he said, but I took his constructive criticism to heart.
You don't have to be an asshole to have a tough conversation with people. Reading this thread, it's so frustrating that people seem to think the two things are the same.
Except when he died of treatable cancer because of his own arrogance and stupidity. Or when he denied paternity of his child.
Whether or not his cancer was so easily treatable (experts have written articles disputing this), "arrogance and stupidity" is a rough thing to say about someone facing a life-threatening diagnosis, dealing with all the fear and uncertainty that goes with that, and having to make a call on how best to confront it.
The paternity thing was of course a black mark on his legacy, but he was young, and we just don't know what kind of fears and unresolved issues might have been influencing his behaviour at that stage. Whatever the case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The whole point of this discussion topic is to take a nuanced view of Jobs' conduct in a particular context. It could do without rage-bait comments like this.
If we, as a humanity, are to stay on this world long-term, we have to create a society where humanity is more important than success and money. We can't idolize abusers, manipulators and psychopaths because they are successful CEOs.
Your summary is a gross oversimplification of what was a very thoughtful comment.
Like I said, the comment you replied to, and the original article, are valuable for their nuance. Your replies are deliberately lacking in nuance and therefore derail the discussion.
Nobody is focusing on how "rich" or "successful" he was; in this discussion people are only talking about how he led his company to build many different products that many people care about and find extremely useful.
As you point out, humanity has many important challenges to solve, and in order to solve them we need leaders who can get results.
I can agree with you that it would be ideal if those leaders were good-natured people who treat others well.
Finding the right balance between getting results and treating people well is an important, complex topic that needs to be discussed with care, not drowned in rage.
Edit: For what it's worth, in the past 24 hours I've posted another comment defending people's right to criticise Elon Musk and invoking The Emperor's New Clothes as a demonstration of why it's important to be free to criticise powerful people, no matter how much they claim to be on a mission to "save the world".
So I'm not against criticism of successful people. I just like it to be substantive, and of the kind that promotes interesting discussions and generates valuable new insights.
Care about how well things works, not what part was your idea!!
Saying that is easy. When someone says the part you made is crap is the time to practice it.
What was the right way for me to react? It would have been a bad idea for me to agree with Steve, raising the question of why I would offer him inferior work. But it would have done no good to disagree either, unless I was willing to enter into an on-the-spot debate with a famously mercurial CEO—and at that moment, I wasn’t.
The answer is easy. Immediately tell your boss that he is using inappropriate language, stop the conversation, and report him to HR. I'm pretty sure this is what Apple's official policy for this sort of situations tells you to do.
And it's not too difficult for that boss to find ways to get you fired if they feel betrayed by you reporting them. Giving you impossible deadlines, tasks you aren't well suited for, dropping hints to other people that you're not performing well, etc. Corporate politics are ugly and are designed to get around HR.
Or, maybe HR takes your side, who knows, but I think a lot of people are afraid to report out of fear for their jobs.
Also he asks what is the right way to react? To agree or to disagree. :)))) I just can't stop laughing. In his narrow mind these are the only options and they are both wrong! A true engineer will just ask why? and then shut up and listen. But these days everybody has an opinion. My opinion is that Earth is flat. There you go.
They'll do nothing and successice complaints will remove you from a role which requires you interfacing with the CEO and then someone else who is capable of taking these blows will get the compesation and influence you had when you were in that role.
It's a balancing act, you can't have everything your way.
Another apple employee
After that i got a blow to my ego and started doing what manager told me to. Looking back, i was really wasting their money and once i got blow to my ego, my productivity drastically increased.
I used to be fast learning workholic and yes, i need constant blows to my ego to prevent me from derailing myself into oblivion. So, i would have respect Steve jobs, if he would have been asshole to me.
Edit: I simply detailed my personal experience, so I don't understand your downvotes.
Essentially, people can be dicks and non-dicks, while simultaneously being givers or takers. Nobody likes a taker, even if they're nice, because that person doesn't help one grow. On the other hand, someone can be a real dick, but in a "giving" way that helps achieve a better outcome for both individuals.
In the case of Jobs, one could argue that his personality was justified not only because great work came out of it, but also because the people doing that work became the best version of themselves in the process. If someone is capable of great work and they produce good work, there's a certain kindness to telling them that's not acceptable. But saying the exact same thing to someone who's less capable can be mean.
A psychologically abusive relationship is a rollercoaster, with punishment and then intermittent reinforcement of kindness when you “behave.” This means the body is going through its own turmoil, with high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, paired with dopamine when given affection as a reward.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/trauma-bonding-abus...
Anyone who insults me and motivates to offer my best, gets my respect and best work. Heck, i would work for more hours if you can offer me such cortisol+dopamine effect which comes from such treatment.
Think about this. Who struggles with a lifeless computer when they only get the sufferings and frustration which comes with it?
Swearing at me is the least you could do to provoke any response.
I like Steve Jobs and I've yet to find the CEOs who are like him. This is probably why there is no other apple.
By saying "Jobs did it, but it's kind of ok", the author is giving license to every self-styled Jobs wannabe that thinks they are headed for greatness.
Jerks should be called out as jerks, no matter how much success or failure they have had. Success and decency as a human being are orthogonal.