
For the past couple of weeks, I’ve been reading much about the future of Apple given the fact that Steve Jobs is sick. And after reading yet another one, today, I’ve finally decided to chime in.
Honestly, and I don’t mean any disrespect to Mr. Jobs as I actually admire the man considerably, is the problem isn’t with Jobs retiring. It’s actually with the lack of tech leaders that posses any vision and charisma to lead such a company, or any company for that matter. That’s really the issue.
Most of what occurs in our industry follows the Intel-ish roadmap. Things get quite predictable after a while. Apple, under Steve Jobs, has been quite a different story. Even when they decided to transition from PPC chips to Intel processors, they implemented them in such a way that was rather unique for the industry. Is all of this to the credit of Jobs? I don’t think so. It was probably some tech weenie who came up with the idea of using EFI and instead of a traditional BIOS. And did Jobs develop a more improved battery and charging system? What about the way their new trackpads allow you to pinch your fingers and do other things to rotate, flip and otherwise manipulate pages?
I’m not trying to take anything away from the man. Not by any means. But the simple reality is I don’t buy for a moment that he’s responsible for all the various innovations.
Over the years, having created and run several startups, I have noticed a couple key truths:
- There is absolutely no shortage of ideas
- If you listen hard enough, you’ll find there are some really great ideas that come up every now and then
Most Many people seem to be divergent thinkers who are incapable of actually getting real development done
- Driving innovation is about driving the good ideas and weeding out the effects of divergent thinkers
- Managing the nay-sayers, divergent thinkers, people who need their backs patted, etc. is more than a full-time job
- The more effective you are, the more you will be labeled a bully or tyrant
Ever notice how many people want to fill the shoes of a guy like Jobs or Gates? Both have had some great people in their organizations. But recognizing the difference between great talent and great leadership can be difficult and misleading. There simply aren’t many companies that have pushed the envelope or defined a market to draw from. And chances are good that the best candidate for the job of replacing Jobs will fail the interview. He’ll be too egotistical, unrealistic, too aggressive, not a people person, etc.
I can remember a few years back when I first interviewed for the job to drive enterprise marketing for Snap Appliance. I did my round of interviews and heard from the VP of Sales how didn’t know what the enterprise was. Yep. That’s why they were interviewing people for the job. I remember my time with the VP of Engineering who proceeded to tell me how we didn’t have the bandwidth to develop the features. Hmm… I didn’t know they’d been defined yet. And the excuses went on. After all was finished, I had my final interview with the CEO who asked me the million dollar question. Here’s the exchange that took place:
CEO: Why should we hire you?
Me: I’m not exactly sure you should.
CEO: Huh? Why do you say that?
Me: Well, I’ve interviewed with all of your staff and one thing is for certain, they all believe that this job is unnecessary because it can’t be done. You can’t move your products up market.
CEO: Well, what do you think you can do to change that?
Me: First of all, I will probably piss off your entire organization. See, I hear all the Nos and Can’ts and I take them as double-dog dares.
CEO: I see. Maybe that’s what we need then.
I lasted in the job for all of three weeks before changing roles to CTO. There was a need for doing more than merely scoping out new features. There was the need for figuring out how to get them into the very tight engineering schedule. And then meant putting in place a rapid prototyping effort. During the process, I took much criticism and ridicule. My schedule estimates were way too aggressive. My ideas were too far fetched. And so on. But I became great friends with the VP of Marketing and the VP of Engineering in the process. We’re still close to this day. And at the end of the day, we had a great acquisition largely due to those far-fetched ideas.
Bringing someone new into the helm of Apple is probably going to mean pissing off a lot of people. Some will feel they were loyal to Jobs and should deserve some credit as a result. Others will feel they were due a promotion. And yet others will feel they should have gotten the job. But the simple reality is that Apple’s future won’t depend on what they did previously with Steve Jobs. It’s going to depend on what they can do in his absence. It’s going to take a strong personality who can hear the good ideas, who can make the tough decisions and live with them and it’s going to take a guy who doesn’t care what everyone else thinks. Can they find a guy like that?
My take is that Apple can very well find a guy like this to drive the company forward. That’s not going to be the problem. The problem is going to be the selection committee. They’re going to look at pedigree. And they will be responsible for killing a great company. Let’s hope they can avoid making that mistake so that we can continue to get great and innovative products from Apple for years to come. And perhaps if we’re lucky, Mr. Jobs will already have a candidate in mind who can leave the critics dumbfounded.