I just finished reading Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. WOW. Isaacson tells us that one of Steve Jobs’ most endearing qualities is that he would call his staff “$hitheads” or “Geniuses.” Often on the same day. And as I read the book I realized the Steve Jobs himself was both a $hithead and a Genius.
He was a genius because he:
• Understood what consumers wanted before they knew they wanted it
• Instinctively knew how important it was to be and think differently
• Insisted on collaboration, integration and connectivity between disciplines
• Recognized how important it was for every member of his team to have an opinion and be willing to stand up and fight for it
• Started Apple with a $5000 loan in 1976. Took the company public in 1980 and raised $110 million. And at the time of his death – Apple was worth about $274 billion dollars
(To name a few)
He was a $hithead because he:
• Cheated Steve Wozniak
• Denied Daniel Kottle (who joined Apple when it was still in Jobs’ garage) stock options
• Took full credit for other people’s ideas
• Made it his mission to take people (and other companies) down
• Said that “Taking LSD was one of the most important things in my life.” (page 41) REALLY Steve?
(To name a few)
Okay – okay. He’s a genius. What company wouldn’t want to have him? He made a lot of people a lot of money. His products are unbelievable. And undeniably – he changed the world. But my goodness – he was NOT a GOOD man. And he was definitely not a NICE man.
At least – that was what I was thinking until our Business Book Club discussion yesterday. A couple members of the group suggested that we look at everything we know about Jobs from another perspective.
Walter Isaacson interviewed Steve Jobs 40 times in the last two years of his life. He talked with more than a hundred of Jobs’ family members, friends, adversaries, competitors, and colleagues. And even though Jobs was not proud of how he handled everything in his life – he specifically told Isaacson that “I don’t have any skeletons in my closet that can’t be allowed out.”
Think about that for a moment. This biography is not cleansed. Isaacson did not “pretty it up.” It’s an honest portrayal. With the good, the bad and the ugly all rolled up into one very complex – and successful — man.
And if Isaacson had that kind of access to other business leaders what would their story look like? Would it match the “ideal” leader that so many business books talk about today? You know the ones I’m talking about:
“Servant Leader”
“Level Five Leader”
“Primal Leadership”
Or would it more closely resemble Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” or the “The Art of War” written by Sun Tzu?
Best-selling business books suggest that a softer, kinder leadership style leads to success. Steve Jobs life tells a different story. So what’s the answer? What kind of leader successfully builds companies, creates value, attracts the best and the brightest and allows people to be more than they thought they could be? Is it the good, kind, and inclusive leader or the $hithead?
You tell me.




