Why Steve Jobs Couldn’t Find a Job Today(blogs.forbes.com)
blogs.forbes.com
Why Steve Jobs Couldn’t Find a Job Today
http://blogs.forbes.com/adamhartung/2011/02/18/why-steve-jobs-couldnt-find-a-job/
12 comments
I think that's the point of the article- companies aren't hiring people who want to rock the boat, you have to find a way to do it yourself.
As a general rule, companies have never hired people who want to rock the boat. The point is that the article missed that point. Nothing is different about "today" vs. any time in the past.
That's the article's point: for the last decade companies have been talking up creativity and innovation and hiring like it was 1959.
Steve Jobs is both. He founded, was fired, and then was hired.
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.
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?
I think most hiring managers would take a chance on that guy.
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?
I think most hiring managers would take a chance on that guy.
There are many people in the world with the passion, drive, and brilliance of Mr. Jobs. You will never know most of their names. Most hiring managers and investors will dismiss them.
Actually, I'd probably threaten to call the cops. Passion or not, 2 am isn't the best time to make unannounced house calls.
No, Jobs would have co-opted the cops and they would have raided you.
http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computer...
http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computer...
A better question is: If Steve Jobs started talking to you about a revolutionary idea that was going to change the world, what would you do? Chances are, you'd nod your head, smile, and go about your day.
And then, a few years later, you'll hear about this super successful company run by some guy called Steve Jobs, and you'll be kicking yourself for not getting in on the ground floor of his operation.
Except that you couldn't recognize that kind of success early unless you had experience investing in that kind of person.
And you'd only hear about his smashing success, not the long hard road fraught with peril and failure that he travelled in order to arrive where he is today.
Nothing comes for free.
And then, a few years later, you'll hear about this super successful company run by some guy called Steve Jobs, and you'll be kicking yourself for not getting in on the ground floor of his operation.
Except that you couldn't recognize that kind of success early unless you had experience investing in that kind of person.
And you'd only hear about his smashing success, not the long hard road fraught with peril and failure that he travelled in order to arrive where he is today.
Nothing comes for free.
Uh, I don't know what hiring managers you've known but all the ones I've known would say he's interesting but won't fit in.
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.
Exactly. The answer to their question is as much "no" now as it was 20 years ago.
It's really quite simple, and in a sense I don't think big companies are behaving irrationally:
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.
Granted, I think the entire hiring system isn't even close to optimized and could be greatly improved.
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.
Granted, I think the entire hiring system isn't even close to optimized and could be greatly improved.
True. I think it's more of a two-way street than the article lets on.
Think back to all of the most quirky, creative, interesting, boat-rocking people you've worked with or met. It's not a universal rule that these folks aren't very good at the "people" side of the equation...but a lot of them aren't. Furthermore, a lot of them have a marked distaste for toeing the party line. They derive more energy from challening assumptions than from accepting them. Or from reinventing the wheel, instead of using the wheel they've got on hand. They get bored or disgruntled very quickly if they're not being stimulated or challenged.
These traits might make for good startup founders, but they don't often correlate with corporate success. Especially at large, traditional, non-tech corporations. In such companies, politics rules the day. Your skill as a politician -- your ability to navigate the waters, network with the right people, kiss the right ass, and sell internally -- is what gets you ahead. Your inability to do so will prevent you from climbing as quickly, or as far, as the savvier operators.
Companies say they want more creative leaders, but all incentives are set up to reward politicians. At the same time, a lot of "creative" folks opt out of the game in the first place -- either through ineptitude at it, or through an avowed distaste for it. It's unfortunate, but it's true in many, many, many cases.
If there's any grand, karmic justice in the whole equation, it's that -- in theory, at least -- the more forward-thinking and "creative" companies will win out in the marketplace. Those companies that choose to be ruled by innovation, by results, and not by politics should outperform the companies that choose not to recognize (or even to suppress) their innovative thinkers. It's not as cut-and-dried as this, of course, but that's what those of us disheartened by these articles should hope for in the long run.
Think back to all of the most quirky, creative, interesting, boat-rocking people you've worked with or met. It's not a universal rule that these folks aren't very good at the "people" side of the equation...but a lot of them aren't. Furthermore, a lot of them have a marked distaste for toeing the party line. They derive more energy from challening assumptions than from accepting them. Or from reinventing the wheel, instead of using the wheel they've got on hand. They get bored or disgruntled very quickly if they're not being stimulated or challenged.
These traits might make for good startup founders, but they don't often correlate with corporate success. Especially at large, traditional, non-tech corporations. In such companies, politics rules the day. Your skill as a politician -- your ability to navigate the waters, network with the right people, kiss the right ass, and sell internally -- is what gets you ahead. Your inability to do so will prevent you from climbing as quickly, or as far, as the savvier operators.
Companies say they want more creative leaders, but all incentives are set up to reward politicians. At the same time, a lot of "creative" folks opt out of the game in the first place -- either through ineptitude at it, or through an avowed distaste for it. It's unfortunate, but it's true in many, many, many cases.
If there's any grand, karmic justice in the whole equation, it's that -- in theory, at least -- the more forward-thinking and "creative" companies will win out in the marketplace. Those companies that choose to be ruled by innovation, by results, and not by politics should outperform the companies that choose not to recognize (or even to suppress) their innovative thinkers. It's not as cut-and-dried as this, of course, but that's what those of us disheartened by these articles should hope for in the long run.
Your skill as a politician -- your ability to navigate the waters, network with the right people, kiss the right ass, and sell internally -- is what gets you ahead.
This sounds like an ideal marketer skillset. Yes? No?
This sounds like an ideal marketer skillset. Yes? No?
A mondern day steve jobs would be a cofounder he wont spend his time looking for one of these jobs the article mentions.
I dunno, I'm not sure VCs would be too keen to fund someone with the characteristics of the 1970s Jobs. Quasi-homeless, just returned from a "spiritual enlightenment" trip to India and now dresses in traditional Indian costume, experiments with LSD...
You can be a cofounder with all those attributes, regardless of VC. You could also create something so compelling that VCs would overlook any concerns like that when it got to that stage of needing further investment.
It's not as easy for startups to create vertically integrated hardware devices these days.
The time was right for the Personal Computer revolution in 1977. In 1997, it was the Internet revolution.
In 2007, it was the Social revolution.
There's always opportunity, you just need to find what is now worldchanging, which would be difficult, expensive, or plain impossible before.
In 2007, it was the Social revolution.
There's always opportunity, you just need to find what is now worldchanging, which would be difficult, expensive, or plain impossible before.
And right now, I think we're going through the human revolution, where we use applications to make humans be better, and do better, and everything is centered around the human experience.
It's a bit naive to think that it was ever particularly easy.
It's hard to imagine Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs working on a custom made device in a garage and selling hundreds of them to a local electronics store today, though.
[deleted]
What about making a custom device in a garage and selling them over the Internet?
They would probably get sued. By Apple ;)
I wanted to make two points in response but e1ven has made one already - that visionaries in another time would probably just have created something different. That restlessness and urge would still exist, they'd likely just react to the different environment.
Secondly, even in hardware, there are opportunities like Kickstarter where anyone bold with a well-presented or confident idea can get some backing. There's a bottle-opening-iPhone-case on there (something that might be presented as a sketch on a comedy show and ridiculed) with $20-30k behind it! I was hoping that was a joke.
Secondly, even in hardware, there are opportunities like Kickstarter where anyone bold with a well-presented or confident idea can get some backing. There's a bottle-opening-iPhone-case on there (something that might be presented as a sketch on a comedy show and ridiculed) with $20-30k behind it! I was hoping that was a joke.
For example a mobile photo sharing app.
Meh, that was the time. Today, the equivalent would be quasi-homeless, just got back from a "blogging" trip backpacking through Thailand, wears board shorts and flip flops, experiments with Provigil.
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"?
One explanation could be that most people find that the pain of losing a set amount of money is greater in magnitude than the joy of making that same amount of money.
Also, it's simply political. When you have shareholders who all hold different beliefs and levels of risk-aversion, things get messy.
Also, it's simply political. When you have shareholders who all hold different beliefs and levels of risk-aversion, things get messy.
You won't get Apple rich with a "me too" attitude, but if you perfect your "me too" methods, you can become extremely wealthy.
Lookup the german Samwer brothers for example...
Lookup the german Samwer brothers for example...
"And it’s not clear America would benefit even if it tried maintaining these lower-skilled jobs."
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.
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.
He's not talking about that, he's talking about sewing buttons on things for 5 bucks a day.
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.
That is not true. Apple is not like Google or Goldman Sachs. They do not ask for your GPA or care where you went to school.
edit: hate to be down-vote curious, but I would be interested to hear if someone has been rejected from Apple for having a poor GPA.
I've interviewed with Apple and nobody asked about my degree or GPA. It was the most on-topic job interview I've ever had. No weird brainteasers or annoying FizzBuzz questions. Just questions directly relevant to the position I was interviewing for. I have a handful of friends who work there who never finished college or have degrees in something irrelevant, like philosophy. Guys like Mike Matas and Mike Lee did not have degrees. The head of iTunes did not go to college at all.
edit: hate to be down-vote curious, but I would be interested to hear if someone has been rejected from Apple for having a poor GPA.
I've interviewed with Apple and nobody asked about my degree or GPA. It was the most on-topic job interview I've ever had. No weird brainteasers or annoying FizzBuzz questions. Just questions directly relevant to the position I was interviewing for. I have a handful of friends who work there who never finished college or have degrees in something irrelevant, like philosophy. Guys like Mike Matas and Mike Lee did not have degrees. The head of iTunes did not go to college at all.
You are right. Apple is more like Oracle and Microsoft: they look for a talent and they will happily ignore GPA or lack of degree.
However, that does not mean it is easier to get job at Apple than Google. Not at all.
However, that does not mean it is easier to get job at Apple than Google. Not at all.
Apple is not like Google or Goldman Sachs. They do not ask for your GPA or care where you went to school.
By that definition, Google is not like Google.
By that definition, Google is not like Google.
Has Google stopped asking for GPAs?
There's a space for it on the application, but neither the recruiter nor interviewers appeared to care about my formal education at all. I don't know how much of a factor it plays in the decision process, but the idea that Google only pays attention to candidates with CS degrees from top-tier universities is false.
Not since I last interviewed.
They asked for mine, but they didn't seem to care much about it. If they had, they wouldn't have hired me. My grades were not good at all.
No that is not ironic.
That is how things work: if you have vision and you want to do something new and innovative, big corporations such as Apple are not the place to work for. They need just very smart people (hopefully not willing to rock the boat) to execute the existing plan.
I'm not saying that all of these companies don't have vision or innovation: the point is that positions requiring vision and initiative are already taken.
And if you try something new, you might get in trouble (just imagine somebody at Research in Motion suggesting to build phone similar to iPhone in 2005).
That is how things work: if you have vision and you want to do something new and innovative, big corporations such as Apple are not the place to work for. They need just very smart people (hopefully not willing to rock the boat) to execute the existing plan.
I'm not saying that all of these companies don't have vision or innovation: the point is that positions requiring vision and initiative are already taken.
And if you try something new, you might get in trouble (just imagine somebody at Research in Motion suggesting to build phone similar to iPhone in 2005).
The problem starts with how Boards of Directors (and management teams) select – incorrectly, it appears – our business leaders...
And as it happens, recently there has been debate about successors to Steve Jobs.
And as it happens, recently there has been debate about successors to Steve Jobs.
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
"... 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"
from: http://bhorowitz.com/2010/04/28/why-we-prefer-founding-ceos/
Edit to add quote