Steve Jobs' first boss: 'Very few companies would hire Steve, even today'

http://www.siliconvalley.com/ci_22884138/steve-jobs-first-boss-very-few-companies-would

by filvdg • 13 years ago

141 89 13 years ago

I'm not sure Steve Jobs would be such a great employee anyway. He was born to lead, not follow. To innovate, not bend himself to someone else's vision. Invest in him? Yes. Hire him? Hmmmmm. Maybe not.

icpmacdo• 13 years ago

Rereading his biography today I came to the exact same conclusion.

lalos• 13 years ago

Don't forget some companies are big and old enough to no longer have the initial vision and can differentiate into other markets with employees that are leaders like Steve. Maybe a good example would be Eisner with Disney

pekk2• 13 years ago

If you can't think of any way to use someone today with the skills of Steve Jobs, the fault might not lie with the person who has those skills.

kamaal2• 13 years ago

Even as a founder of a company, Steve Jobs is by large not of much use without somebody like Steve Wozniak.

ritchiea• 13 years ago

And is Steve Wozniak more than a career engineer without Steve Jobs? I think it's more accurate to say they are both exponentially more valuable in tandem than solo.

47uF• 13 years ago

And Steve Wozniak isn't of much use without computers. I guess that makes him pretty useless as a programmer.

phaus4• 13 years ago

A grown man that throws tantrums, belittles subordinates, and never admits when his company has made a mistake is not what I would call a born leader.

mikecane8• 13 years ago

Go read the biography of Harry Cohn, one of the founders of Columbia Pictures.

gngeal• 13 years ago

"A grown man that throws tantrums, belittles subordinates, and never admits when his company has made a mistake is not what I would call a born leader."

So, one could easily compare him with Stalin, Hitler, and other people like these who happened to have similar habits? Well, the life story of well-adjusted sociopaths...

chongli4• 13 years ago

That's exactly what I'd call a born leader. These types of people do not show any weakness and refuse to compromise on their vision.

untog2• 13 years ago

The only thing that worries me about bringing focus to stuff like this is that people will walk away with the reverse impression- that if they're unhireable it must mean that they're just like Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs could be many things. Inspired is one of them. An asshole is another. Just because people think you're an asshole doesn't automatically mean you're inspired.

pekk2• 13 years ago

I'm worried about your impression that if you don't like someone, they can't do interesting things as Jobs did.

Who is actually "unhireable"? And even if they are, does that mean they cannot accomplish anything? Are you in charge of deciding who will never amount to anything?

untog2• 13 years ago

They could well do interesting things, as Jobs did- I'm not saying they can't. I'm more trying to say that there is no guaranteed connection between the two, in the same way that wearing black turtlenecks isn't going to make you any more enlightened either.

tobylane• 13 years ago

Jobs was almost unhirable because he had a vegan diet, no showers and no shoes. He ended up working night shifts. I haven't heard how Woz coped with this.

epo• 13 years ago

Downvoted for projecting your opinion of Jobs onto your (probably deliberate) misinterpretation of the story. Jobs was a difficult hire because he wasn't a team player.

mkhpalm• 13 years ago

I agree, it sends the wrong message about key traits Steve Jobbs was good at. Anyone successful at being a jerk has 1 of 2 things the rest won't have:

1. They have something tangible to offer every single person that has to deal with them.

2. They are able to build bridges at least as fast as they're able to burn them down.

If the behavior isn't sustainable then I think its safe to say we have a problem, not an asset.

arbuge• 13 years ago

Quite so. The class of asshole geniuses is a subset of the asshole class.

NegativeK• 13 years ago

It's also, fortunately, a subset of the genius class.

Cacti• 13 years ago

Well, that's true, but Bushnell is really the focus of the article, and he says something that is spot-on:

"The basics: Make work fun; weed out the naysayers; celebrate failure, and then learn from it; allow employees to take short naps during the day; and don't shy away from hiring talented people just because they look sloppy or lack college credentials."

weisser• 13 years ago

"Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with Jobs if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest $50,000 in Apple during its formative stages. Had he seized that opportunity, Bushnell would have owned one-third of Apple, which is now worth about $425 billion -- more than any other company in the world."

Surprised Jobs would have offered so much of Apple, even in the formative stages, for $50k (which surely translates to much more money than $50k is today). It is interesting to consider how that would have changed the control/direction of Apple.

corporalagumbo• 13 years ago

An iMac with vintage wood panelling?

Swannie2• 13 years ago

But this is wrong. The $50k would have gone through many dilutions. He may have owned 1/3 of Apple. There is no way that today he would have 1/3rd. That said, it does raise the question: if he had gone in to Apple, would Jobs have ever left and started NeXT and Pixar???

Hitchhiker• 13 years ago

Early stage investing provably cannot be as rational as most try and make it to be. When a group tips and looks like a good score is about to emerge.. the score-keepers have to increment the score ( i.e. give investment ) as that is about the only function they serve.

" Finally, I'd like to once again talk about investment management. That is a funny business because on a net basis, the whole investment management business together gives no value added to all buyers combined. That's the way it has to work. " - Charlie Munger

When people rejected or passed on .. at that point in time .. it would have been entirely rational to do so. I am not certain even Mr.Jobs knew how time would turn.

dmk23• 13 years ago

I do not understand why anyone would find this quote surprising, controversial or even newsworthy.

Employees operate within the rules established by their employers - they have a boss and are expected to be a "good solider" to support objectives of their company / business unit... People like Steve Jobs are successful because of their audacity to disregard the rules and make their own.

These are entirely different mindsets and skillsets. Employees are given direction, entrepreneurs set the direction.

What I find a lot more interesting is that quite a few startup founders act like employees rather than leaders - constantly asking (explicitly or implicitly) for approval of others. Look around and see if you can recognize people who care about the opinions of press/investors/advisors/peers more than achieving product/market fit followed by revenue/profitability/growth.

keefe• 13 years ago

You don't actually have to be that much of a soldier at most places and most places today, imho, would hire steve jobs. I have a day job and my personal ventures and the bottom line is if you do your job, nobody cares. I think the vast majority of successful leaders also had a successful period working on someone else's project beforehand.

kamaal2• 13 years ago

That's sort of straight obvious.

Basically because if somebody like Steve Jobs doesn't have a Steve Wozniak to build things for him in the start he is more or less a arrogant egoistic tantrum throwing hippie kind of a guy whom nobody would like to deal with.

You meet a genius co-founder like Steve Wozniak very very rarely.

Nearly every program manager is a lesser version of Steve Jobs, that is how authority looks cool and glorified. Giving an impression that the manager is automagically creating success out of thin air while a engineer somewhere pushing 19 hr daily schedules to make it happen doesn't count or is irrelevant.

Steve Jobs reminds of Peter Keating from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.

gmu3• 13 years ago

Wow that's fairly insulting and not really an appropriate comparison at all. Peter Keating was anything but an arrogant egoist, and he bent over backwards to please the people he dealt with (his superiors at least)

batgaijin• 13 years ago

At the end of the day what Peter Keating did was because of how people reacted to him.

Tell me that using the dealer trick to not have a license plate is somehow not the same childish level of vanity that you would expect of a successful manchild.

pfraze• 13 years ago

Steve Jobs is the visible topic! You don't have to bring up Woz or any of the other countless engineers to still admire his genius-- you don't have to be an engineer to be a genius-- and common ignorance about the nuance of the story doesn't make for an incorrect story. Of course there were other brilliant people involved, and they are celebrated, without qualification, in the circles which understand their work.

Is it tiresome to hear about Jobs? Yeah, I'm over it. But you know what's worse are the people coming back with the idea that the managers are all leaches. You don't work in a vacuum. You are not capable of accomplishing it all on your own. And guess what? Steve Jobs was capable of things that most people are not.

Criticize him for taking the aesthetic and not the architecture from PARC. Criticize him for creating locked platforms and eschewing FOSS. Criticize him on any number of substantive topics, but don't let's bog down every moment of cultural hero worship just because they didn't choose the guy with our job title. The engineers get their time.

mikecane8• 13 years ago

>>>Steve Jobs reminds of Peter Keating from Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead'.

Seriously? You think Hank Rearden developed Rearden Steel without all of the efforts others had first made in steel? Dagny inherited her damn railroad. She didn't create it. Richard Halley didn't invent music. John Galt was working in a damn auto factory. He didn't invent autos nor the idea of an engine. Midas Mulligan was a goddammed banker. He didn't invent currency or the idea of stored value.

Alex_MJ• 13 years ago

Optimal Founder/CEO != Optimal Employee

mathogre• 13 years ago

No one would hire him today. Companies are risk averse, given the current economic/political climate. If you can't produce and "fit in", don't bother submitting your resumé.

wyclif2• 13 years ago

It's possible that nobody would hire an unknown Steve Jobs now, but it really doesn't matter. Jobs wasn't an employee, he was a founder. Founders don't have to concern themselves with getting hired.

mikecane8• 13 years ago

>>>Founders don't have to concern themselves with getting hired.

But they still have to do things like pay rent, buy food, buy clothes, buy tech. Those things take money. And money is usually gotten from a job. The point is, Jobs wouldn't have even been able to get a job to survive first. That old guy sweeping floors in McDonald's today? Did you ever stop to think what led him there? (For the Rand worshipers out there, how was Galt employed at Taggart Transcontinental?)

wavefunction• 13 years ago

What CAN'T "Founders" do?

Interesting seeing the egos on display.

sGrabber• 13 years ago

You might be the best as an individual but if you are not a team player, the probability of succeeding is minimal. Team members complement each other to make successful products/companies or any relationship

sgloutnikov• 13 years ago

I will never forget. The day Jobs died, Al Alcorn was giving a talk at San Jose State University for my Computer History course. He took about 15-20 minutes before the talk and shared many inside stories from the Atari days about Jobs. Truly remarkable stuff. As he put it, "I was the only boss he ever had". I am sad that his stories got cut out from the recorded lecture, maybe because he said a lot of colorful things :)

Here is a short post talk interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odcXGIQuxAg

And, the talk itself (5th one in the list), plus many other interesting ones from computing legends if anyone wants to check them out: http://www.sjsu.edu/at/atn/webcasting/archives/fall_2011/his...

JumpCrisscross• 13 years ago

"Bushnell, now 70, could have reaped even more from his relationship with Jobs if he hadn't turned down an offer from his former employee to invest $50,000 in Apple during its formative stages."

$50 000 in 1976, the year Apple was founded, had the purchasing power of over $200 000 today. Without the benefit of hindsight he probably made a sensible, if unlucky, decision.

Lerc• 13 years ago

He is 70 now, Probably hasn't gone hungry in that time and he has taken on a decent number of fascinating projects in his lifetime.

Cash only makes a difference in the event of a tie-break, and I think he's ahead of most.

stuffihavemade• 13 years ago

Plus, who's to say he wouldn't have cashed out at some point during the downward spiral in the 90's?

kami8845• 13 years ago

In other news: Grey-haired dude from long-ago bigs himself up for hiring someone who is seen as a bad employee. "I was smarter back then than all y'all are today." Also missed the chance to buy 33% of Apple for 5k, with Apple now being valued at 425 billion USD.

Cardeck14• 13 years ago

The sad, harsh reality is, no one would hire Steve Jobs today or almost no one.Why?Because times have changed (In a bad way).We live in a world full of arrogance, stupidity and ignorance.We no longer think how to change the world but how to make a lot of money.

Steve Jobs was a non-technical guy.We have 1 million topics on HN bashing these guys for 1 million reasons.Even on this one we have engineers talking about the same thing over and over.

How about being realistic at least once. We do not give these people any chance of working with us.Because we are so arrogant these days that we think the world belong to us and only we (programmers/engineers) can change it.

We cannot find a Steve Jobs when we are not willing to risk at all.How many of you helped a non-technical guy building a project without asking for a huge amount of money or 100% equity?Probably not many.Most of the help consists of telling the guy to find a cofounder or to quit the project.Not one programmer/engineer would say "hey you know what, you're crazy but I'll help you" or any other similar line.

The truth is we do not own the world and we are not all-knowing. We can be all-star programmers and yet have crap ideas.Nothing is set in stone.Someone out there is always better than you.And history shows us that small things count. Unbelievable things come from unexpected places.

I am not saying that every non-technical guy is a Steve Jobs because I had my own failures with these guys and yes, it's incredibly frustrating.But those were bad selections.A risk I was willing to take.I helped a non-technical guy with a startup 4 years ago.He had a weird idea and he asked me to help him in exchange for a fixed sum of 350K. He came to me with a damn paper and pen to talk about his idea. He had no money to hire a programmer only an ambition that could move mountains.And after 6 months I received the money in my account...the startup was a success...and that's when I changed my mentality.

So in conclusion, if we want to see a Steve Jobs, we have to take risks.Otherwise let's continue flipping the coin and wait for it.

mikecane8• 13 years ago

Well, the other thing to consider about Jobs + Wozniak is that they were young at the time. The young are more apt to take risks -- and they were also friends with mutual interests beyond just computing. Did Jobs tend to use Wozniak? Yes. But Wozniak had to be willing to go along on the ride. Also, being young, they had their parents to still fall back on, whereas if you're older and being asked to take a risk, you have to consider the web of financial and personal obligations that have grown up to ensnare you.

EDIT: Typo killed.

Cardeck14• 13 years ago

Exactly.Wozniak had to be willing to go along on the ride.And he did it.Did he ever create a scandal or, I don't know, fight for glory with Jobs?No.He was always a humble guy and got the work done.No drama or anything.And he was well repaid.

We have plenty of young talented people in this world.But I already stated the problem in my initial post.

talmand9• 13 years ago

I don't think the world is that much different today than it was yesterday. You perspective on it may be different and will continue to evolve over time, but for the most part the world we live in continues much the same as it always has. The problems you speak of is nothing new. Just look on the history of a different industry and you're likely to find much the same.

But, during the early years Jobs was not selling his own crazy ideas, he was selling Woz's. Plus I wouldn't say that Jobs was a non-technical guy as he clearly knew tech, he just accepted his place in that field.

The thing I don't get about your comment is that we see people risking things on non-technical people's ideas every day, so I don't understand your point.

Cardeck14• 13 years ago

I have to disagree here.Even though my perspective has changed, times have changed too.How?Look around.If you do not see it than I will stop here.

Steve Jobs was a non-technical guy.That's why there were so many debates about tech and non tech guys during these years.He acquired knowledge over time through various sources.He had everything on a plate.And you can be a complete outsider in a company.When you spend so much time in your industry, in your environment, you learn.But you couldn't say he was a programmer or engineer.

Saying that people are risking things on non-tech people's ideas every day is like saying people are driving a car every day.Of course they are.In this world there is a little bit of everything.Rich people, poor people, low jobs, high jobs etc. We are talking about the majority or current situation. And for the moment the situation is just how I described it.

If you think it is not true, post a project on HN as a non-technical guy and ask for someone to help you build your project.I am curious how many would help you.

That is just my personal opinion based on my observations and experiences.

michaelochurch3• 13 years ago

The problem is that no one would hire Steve Jobs as a subordinate, but he was an evident great hire for a decision-making role, even then. People like him usually get filtered out before they get high enough to use their talents, though. In fact, Jobs is the opposite of what corporations promote, which explains a lot about them.

talmand9• 13 years ago

I would like to know what traits you believe he showed that would make him a great hire for a decision-making role early in his career.

michaelochurch3• 13 years ago

Lack of deference to authority, independent mindset.

pjungwir• 13 years ago

Sort of OT:

Michael, have you read Managing the Professional Service Firm by David Maister? He writes powerfully about economics, incentives, and culture as they relate to management. I think his book would give you a lot to think about, and you'd find plenty both to learn and to argue against. His focus is a "firm" structured on the partner/associate model. I'd love to see more people thinking about and experimenting with that model for software developers. I think it offers many similarities to what you admire about Github and Valve. And perhaps it is a model where Steve Jobs could find a place.

michaelochurch3• 13 years ago

I haven't read it.

I don't like the partner/associate model as it works in law firms, because (at least in 2013) it becomes a two-class system as toxic as the tenured/not distinction in academia.

Also, law firm bonuses aren't direct profit-sharing. What I proposed in my recent essay ( http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle... ) is real, motivationally significant profit-sharing extended to all employees. In biglaw, they are hosed if they work hard for 7 years and don't make partner; in VC-istan, engineers in a 50-person company get ~0.04% equity instead of the ~0.45% profit sharing they'd get under my system.

The idea that I have in mind is one where profit sharing's open to all employees and substantial but very few people end up holding equity, because the thing's not built to be sold and equity is only for people expected to be long-term (10+ years) contributors.

mikecane8• 13 years ago

NewsFlash: The older Steve Jobs would not have hired the younger Steve Jobs today.

lifeisstillgood• 13 years ago

We are all good at recognising our younger selves.

We might not like them, but we can recognise them

mikecane8• 13 years ago

Yes. And our older selves are more likely to "contain" our younger selves because we know how bad we once were.

rmrfrmrf• 13 years ago

It's really insulting to reduce a human being to some kind of archetype incapable of adapting to a situation. Steve was a bright guy -- I'm sure that if he ever found himself in a position where he needed to apply as an employee of a company, he would know how to 'play the game' and adapt to the situation.

Also, I'm sick of hearing people downplay Jobs' role in Apple and giving Woz all of the credit (although I'm not surprised; I'm assuming that many introverted code monkeys here aspire to be the unsung hero co-founder of a company).

It's the same shit I hear about how the Beatles would be nothing without George Martin or LSD. It should go without saying that these revolutionary things (i.e. Apple and the Beatles) are products of both serendipitous events AND the surrounding cultural context. Yes, if you remove one piece of the puzzle, OF COURSE the end-result will be different. But what makes it a moot point is that the converse is also true -- George Martin would be nothing without the Beatles, and Woz would be completely unheard of if it weren't for Steve Jobs.

talmand9• 13 years ago

I agree except for your last comment where you do the very thing you complain others are doing with Jobs. You downplayed Woz's contributions by implying that he would have done nothing exceptional unless Jobs was there to hold his hand. Except that Woz is credited with developing the Apple I by himself but I suppose he would have just tossed the thing in the bin if not for Jobs.

microtherion• 13 years ago

Come to think of it, Steve would have been nothing without LSD either :-)

michaell2• 13 years ago

IMHO it's strange that we are discussing hiring Mr reality distortion field for a technical position here. If he were reincarnated and looking for a job now, he would probably go into sales. What do they care more about in sales, team playing or closing contracts for new leads? Then there is the "motivational speaking", another fruitful and remunerative area of endeavor for this sort of people :)

talmand9• 13 years ago

I would have said he was in sales from the beginning and he focused on tech, of which he had a background.

Vinnix• 13 years ago

As much as I appreciate the opinion, I just don't think it is valid. Outliers shouldn't reflect everyone...

Steve Jobs' first boss: 'Very few companies would hire Steve, even today'

Related Stories