8 thoughts on “Seven habits of spectacularly unsuccessful executives”
Several of these applied more to Steve Jobs than they apply to Tim Cook (who once said, “I’d rather my name never be in the paper” when asked if he resented Jobs getting too much credit). #2, 5 and 6, for example. Either Apple’s best years really are ahead of it, or maybe these habits don’t always lead to a spectacular lack of success. Possibly both.
You really have no clue, do you.
If you actually had a good look at either man, Jobs or Cook, none of these “traits” apply to either of them. And certainly none of them apply to Apple, Inc.
Apple’s success, both present and future, depends upon wholly other factors than these listed (rather pitiful) personality aberrations.
Geez, it’s only a newspaper article. Of course Apple’s success owes to other factors besides the ones cited. I was just pointing out that some of them also could be said of executives that were far from unsuccessful.
Steve Jobs wasn’t a “consummate spokesperson, obsessed with the company image”? I don’t think there’s a single executive in recent memory whom that applies/applied to more.
OK, let’s keep this simple. You dump on Steve Jobs: I dump on you and anyone else. Got it?
Not dumping at all. He was just the exception that proves the rule in so many ways. His personal identity was blurred with that of the company (#2) in that Apple’s products were influenced by his personal tastes, but that (mostly) worked for him because he had great taste. He underestimated obstacles (#6), but he could inspire those under him (i.e. the “reality distortion field”) to the point where they were more disregarded than underestimated.
OK, so you’re not dumping. But I disagree with you on #2. There wasn’t any “blurring”. And “personality” is psycho-babble = meaningless. I also think “tastes” is the wrong word. His intuition certainly came into play, as well as a profound ability to observe. These qualities put him far above the detestable traits listed in the article.
There’s also nothing ultimately wrong with underestimating obstacles, if one eventually reevaluates and eventually conquers them. Where this really went wrong was with the competitors’ complacency and arrogance in not recognizing the real threat the iPhone and iPad represented to their entrenched operations.
But that was THOSE executives, not Steve!
If I may add a humble 2 cents… Jobs, as most visionaries, was able to see farther into the future than those around him and have the conviction to implement those visions. eg. NeXT computer. Technology was finally able to synchronize with his visions and here we are today. Most “Executives” are more interested in $$$ and parachutes d’or.
Several of these applied more to Steve Jobs than they apply to Tim Cook (who once said, “I’d rather my name never be in the paper” when asked if he resented Jobs getting too much credit). #2, 5 and 6, for example. Either Apple’s best years really are ahead of it, or maybe these habits don’t always lead to a spectacular lack of success. Possibly both.
You really have no clue, do you.
If you actually had a good look at either man, Jobs or Cook, none of these “traits” apply to either of them. And certainly none of them apply to Apple, Inc.
Apple’s success, both present and future, depends upon wholly other factors than these listed (rather pitiful) personality aberrations.
Geez, it’s only a newspaper article. Of course Apple’s success owes to other factors besides the ones cited. I was just pointing out that some of them also could be said of executives that were far from unsuccessful.
Steve Jobs wasn’t a “consummate spokesperson, obsessed with the company image”? I don’t think there’s a single executive in recent memory whom that applies/applied to more.
OK, let’s keep this simple. You dump on Steve Jobs: I dump on you and anyone else. Got it?
Not dumping at all. He was just the exception that proves the rule in so many ways. His personal identity was blurred with that of the company (#2) in that Apple’s products were influenced by his personal tastes, but that (mostly) worked for him because he had great taste. He underestimated obstacles (#6), but he could inspire those under him (i.e. the “reality distortion field”) to the point where they were more disregarded than underestimated.
OK, so you’re not dumping. But I disagree with you on #2. There wasn’t any “blurring”. And “personality” is psycho-babble = meaningless. I also think “tastes” is the wrong word. His intuition certainly came into play, as well as a profound ability to observe. These qualities put him far above the detestable traits listed in the article.
There’s also nothing ultimately wrong with underestimating obstacles, if one eventually reevaluates and eventually conquers them. Where this really went wrong was with the competitors’ complacency and arrogance in not recognizing the real threat the iPhone and iPad represented to their entrenched operations.
But that was THOSE executives, not Steve!
If I may add a humble 2 cents… Jobs, as most visionaries, was able to see farther into the future than those around him and have the conviction to implement those visions. eg. NeXT computer. Technology was finally able to synchronize with his visions and here we are today. Most “Executives” are more interested in $$$ and parachutes d’or.
sven habits of spectacle unhappy seo
glasses are top for you, fjord harrison
and so on