I love the employment curves in this article, especially the unskilled developer curve. On the skilled side, I can relate to the feeling of hitting an apex at which you feel like you've given all you can to a given position or group.
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Turnover-Crisis.aspx
In particular I endorse the culture of creating alumni out of employees, where people are expected to outgrow but still love their former companies and colleagues. Alumni might come back, or they might simply refer other great talents to go there and contribute.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Trends toward complexity and simplicity in technology
As part of research I am doing on Search technologies, I have been speaking recently with people about the trends they see in search and where they see things going. One thing this has gotten me thinking about is the balance of complexity and simplicity in the evolution of technologies.
Brad King at Yahoo mentioned that the capabilities of search engines are beyond what most users know are available. This is true. In one book that I read, probably The Search by John Battelle, I learned that I could type in math straight into the input box and get back answers. I can also have it directly return definitions. Who new?
So I pose the broad question, will users adopt the featuresets of software providers even though the capabilities of software are well beyond what the users are currently familiar with? In some cases, no. My ability to use a word processor and a spreadsheet have not progressed much at all in the last 10 years or so. I know that there are lots of great features in them, but I could honestly still get by with the $35.00 of Office 97 that I bought way back in the day. And to be honest, I liked and still like the feel of Wordperfect more than office...but I digress. The point is, unless you have a specialized need, you probably don't care about the new features in office productivity software either. So why would you care about advanced features of email or search engines?
On the other hand, people tend to demand more from applications over time. Recently I was working on a web application and I knew that the bar was set so much higher to build this site than it would have been 10 years ago. It is kind of depressing. If I don't use AJAX and some sweet CSS and nice graphics, then my consumers are going to be very disappointed.
So, in some cases people don't care and in some cases people demand more as time goes by. To what extent can businesses drive demand through innovation? Does it have its limits? On the other hand, to what extent do customers drive innovation? Has this balance changed over time or is it consistent? Crowd sourcing is starting to become relatively popular these days and with good reason. On the other hand, companies like Apple and Nintendo do very well by doing the innovation themselves (as I have discussed in previous posts). I guess the issue comes down to complexity. You don't see cars exploding in additionally functionality (at least not the kind that users need to interact with). You don't see cars becoming more like a cockpit of a plane. Check that, you do see these types of trends happening with microwaves and refrigeraters and things like that--but who really wants 15 buttons on the front of the fridge when all they want is a piece of ice? I know I purposely by simpler models because I don't want too many options. Businesses do experiment with innovations, but not all of them hit. So again, I go back to my previous questions, what are the limits for how much businesses can drive consumer adoption of new functionality in software and how much can consumers drive companies to change their feature sets and has this balance changed over time?
Brad King at Yahoo mentioned that the capabilities of search engines are beyond what most users know are available. This is true. In one book that I read, probably The Search by John Battelle, I learned that I could type in math straight into the input box and get back answers. I can also have it directly return definitions. Who new?
So I pose the broad question, will users adopt the featuresets of software providers even though the capabilities of software are well beyond what the users are currently familiar with? In some cases, no. My ability to use a word processor and a spreadsheet have not progressed much at all in the last 10 years or so. I know that there are lots of great features in them, but I could honestly still get by with the $35.00 of Office 97 that I bought way back in the day. And to be honest, I liked and still like the feel of Wordperfect more than office...but I digress. The point is, unless you have a specialized need, you probably don't care about the new features in office productivity software either. So why would you care about advanced features of email or search engines?
On the other hand, people tend to demand more from applications over time. Recently I was working on a web application and I knew that the bar was set so much higher to build this site than it would have been 10 years ago. It is kind of depressing. If I don't use AJAX and some sweet CSS and nice graphics, then my consumers are going to be very disappointed.
So, in some cases people don't care and in some cases people demand more as time goes by. To what extent can businesses drive demand through innovation? Does it have its limits? On the other hand, to what extent do customers drive innovation? Has this balance changed over time or is it consistent? Crowd sourcing is starting to become relatively popular these days and with good reason. On the other hand, companies like Apple and Nintendo do very well by doing the innovation themselves (as I have discussed in previous posts). I guess the issue comes down to complexity. You don't see cars exploding in additionally functionality (at least not the kind that users need to interact with). You don't see cars becoming more like a cockpit of a plane. Check that, you do see these types of trends happening with microwaves and refrigeraters and things like that--but who really wants 15 buttons on the front of the fridge when all they want is a piece of ice? I know I purposely by simpler models because I don't want too many options. Businesses do experiment with innovations, but not all of them hit. So again, I go back to my previous questions, what are the limits for how much businesses can drive consumer adoption of new functionality in software and how much can consumers drive companies to change their feature sets and has this balance changed over time?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Creating An Enjoyable Article In Academic Writing
I don't tend to be a person that is normally at a loss for words when discussing topics I am familiar with. It is therefore very perplexing that I have struggled early on with academic writing. One thing I was vaguely aware of early last year was that although I might bring a number of abilities with me to the field of research, I wouldn't know a good research topic or finding if I were standing on it.
Tonight while working on an essay I had an epiphany of sorts and I believe it will help a lot going forward. The following are my thoughts as I thought through the situation:
Here's what I'm thinking. I'm working on an essay and it just doesn't have impact. I understand the ways in which two kinds of theories describe what is going on with online search. Nevertheless, I struggle to bring them together in a way that makes for an enjoyable and convincing read. As I look at other essays that are good, something that stands out to me is that they bring in tension of some sort. A historical story about something that I don't know about, with a warning and prescription for success, makes a good read. An argument for why something should be done that isn't being done makes a good read. Explaining why something is what it is, which is what I am doing, has less impact. If a tension could be created, a bold statement backed up by theory, then that would provide for an interesting read. Arguing means making an assertion and providing a rationale behind that assertion. Saying that the grass is green and describing why is not an argument. Saying that the grass will stay green and describing why is, potentially, an argument. Saying that the grass is green but could be blue in 2 weeks and then explaining why, is an assertion--is an argument.
In other random thoughts today, I was really enjoying reading the blog of Lewis Elliot today. I am into triathlons and since he is a guy who literally smoked me at a small event last year, I check up on his status from time to time. I wonder if it would even be possible to write about events in a PhD program in that same way that he does and have it be interesting to somebody, somewhere, some day. Something tells me that it is far cooler to talk about puking in Kona while racing on your bike against the fastest guys in the world than it is to talk about a conversation in a doctoral seminar or getting stuck in traffic on the way to school. Nevertheless, maybe I'll give it a try. I bet the people I am working with are going to be famous (well, some already are) and somebody will want to read about it at some point.
Tonight while working on an essay I had an epiphany of sorts and I believe it will help a lot going forward. The following are my thoughts as I thought through the situation:
Here's what I'm thinking. I'm working on an essay and it just doesn't have impact. I understand the ways in which two kinds of theories describe what is going on with online search. Nevertheless, I struggle to bring them together in a way that makes for an enjoyable and convincing read. As I look at other essays that are good, something that stands out to me is that they bring in tension of some sort. A historical story about something that I don't know about, with a warning and prescription for success, makes a good read. An argument for why something should be done that isn't being done makes a good read. Explaining why something is what it is, which is what I am doing, has less impact. If a tension could be created, a bold statement backed up by theory, then that would provide for an interesting read. Arguing means making an assertion and providing a rationale behind that assertion. Saying that the grass is green and describing why is not an argument. Saying that the grass will stay green and describing why is, potentially, an argument. Saying that the grass is green but could be blue in 2 weeks and then explaining why, is an assertion--is an argument.
In other random thoughts today, I was really enjoying reading the blog of Lewis Elliot today. I am into triathlons and since he is a guy who literally smoked me at a small event last year, I check up on his status from time to time. I wonder if it would even be possible to write about events in a PhD program in that same way that he does and have it be interesting to somebody, somewhere, some day. Something tells me that it is far cooler to talk about puking in Kona while racing on your bike against the fastest guys in the world than it is to talk about a conversation in a doctoral seminar or getting stuck in traffic on the way to school. Nevertheless, maybe I'll give it a try. I bet the people I am working with are going to be famous (well, some already are) and somebody will want to read about it at some point.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Technology Team Socialization
A long running debate in the social sciences deals with internal versus external forces behind the behavior of people. Within a corporate environment, knowing how to understand people and work with them is important to receive the maximum benefit from company team members. Knowing whether to address personal or social issues helps businesses direct their efforts appropriately to receive the benefits they seek from their team members.
The dominant perspective of business success is the Resource Based View (RBV). This view perceives the relative advantage of a given business to be the bundle of resources it possesses that are difficult to reproduce at other companies. If a competing company tries to build a similar product with similar resources, it may be unable to do so effectively if the resources are not marshaled effectively. Therein lies an implicit believe that management of resources is paramount for managerial success.
One piece of the bundle of resources that a company has is its culture. Culture is something that is unique from company to company. People spend more time at their jobs than in any other social context (0ther than their families). In light of this, the influence of corporate culture on people cannot be understated. All forms of cultural norms and values, not just about work, but about society and social interaction are inculcated in a business environment. Like the sunshine, this constant influence is present on an individual at least eight hours a day and is likely to leave a cultural tan as it were on the individual.
Technology teams are affected significantly by culture. This culture can be both imported by employees coming into the work force or created on the job. In the current era within which we live, one recent development is that technology teams are increasingly composed of international individuals. A CIO of a billion dollar company I spoke to recently said he could field three full cricket teams at a company picnic. In discussing his staff, he related that his biggest challenge was to encourage the same entrepreneurial spirit in this non-native development team as that which had existed when the company grew from a small group to its current status.
Many interesting questions come up in light of these issues. How much do corporations influence the social process of its team members? What are the implications for companies that hire from other companies as a result of this? What are the effects on society of corporate cultures? What options are available to managers wishing to encourage certain corporate cultures? How do off-shoring and outsourcing affect a single corporation's social culture?
The dominant perspective of business success is the Resource Based View (RBV). This view perceives the relative advantage of a given business to be the bundle of resources it possesses that are difficult to reproduce at other companies. If a competing company tries to build a similar product with similar resources, it may be unable to do so effectively if the resources are not marshaled effectively. Therein lies an implicit believe that management of resources is paramount for managerial success.
One piece of the bundle of resources that a company has is its culture. Culture is something that is unique from company to company. People spend more time at their jobs than in any other social context (0ther than their families). In light of this, the influence of corporate culture on people cannot be understated. All forms of cultural norms and values, not just about work, but about society and social interaction are inculcated in a business environment. Like the sunshine, this constant influence is present on an individual at least eight hours a day and is likely to leave a cultural tan as it were on the individual.
Technology teams are affected significantly by culture. This culture can be both imported by employees coming into the work force or created on the job. In the current era within which we live, one recent development is that technology teams are increasingly composed of international individuals. A CIO of a billion dollar company I spoke to recently said he could field three full cricket teams at a company picnic. In discussing his staff, he related that his biggest challenge was to encourage the same entrepreneurial spirit in this non-native development team as that which had existed when the company grew from a small group to its current status.
Many interesting questions come up in light of these issues. How much do corporations influence the social process of its team members? What are the implications for companies that hire from other companies as a result of this? What are the effects on society of corporate cultures? What options are available to managers wishing to encourage certain corporate cultures? How do off-shoring and outsourcing affect a single corporation's social culture?
Friday, April 04, 2008
Cultural Rigidity in Business Part 1
Today as I walked to my office (passing palm trees, blue skies, flowing fountains--somebody pinch me; I can't believe Arizona is so awesome) my thoughts turned to resistance to organizational change in the corporate setting. Clearly there is a lot of thought that has gone into this topic because we have change management experts out there, so I'm sure my ideas won't be anything new. However, I don't time to do background research on the area so I'll jot down some quick thoughts.
Jim Collins in his book Good to Great talked about a flywheel concept, which is a lot like the idea of a train. It is the idea that something that weighs a whole lot moves very slowly in the beginning, and then someday it is a juggernaut of force and nobody can believe the inertia that it has. This perspective applied to business describes many businesses that seem to grow very slowly, but one day are huge and unstoppable. One of the key ideas is that there were not abrupt changes in what the businesses did as they reached their crescendo. In contrast, businesses which have a lot of momentum can lose it when they make changes.
One thing that jumps out to me is how the element of culture is relevant to maintianing a momentum building business. The other day I spoke about Steve Jobs and John Sculley. Could it be that although Steve Jobs was initially characterized as a tyrant, his business had become so culturally attuned to functioning that way that it could not function otherwise?
Culture seems to get ingrained in people wherever they work. I have found that AT&T people in Utah are characterized by high ethics. They take that with them wherever they go. I have found that people involved with Computer Associates (CA) are frequently dishonest, regardless of the level of management that they are found at. I have found that people at Arthur Anderson were stiff and rigid in their thinking about problems. I found that people at Ernst & Young were more adaptive in thinking about the same problems. I have found that people from Cerner are brash.
One question that comes to mind is how these cultural inculcations affect leaders--or even employes--from one organization as it relates to their succeeding in another. I once heard it said that there was a rule on the street that you should never hire a person out of IBM until they had failed at their first job outside of IBM. The idea being that although they were highly capable, they generally unable to succeed culturally at other organizations as they left IBM with a preconceived notion about how things work in the world. With some self reflection and self awareness caused by failure, however, they became better positioned to share their skills in future endeavors (without failing or destroying the company that they went to).
Culture in the corporate world is a hard habit to break. My father worked at a building materials super store called YardBird. YardBird competed with Home Depot. They built their whole ethos around being whatever Home Depot was not. If Home Depot didn't let their people move from their stations to help others, YardBird would let people go everywhere in the store to help a customer and stay with them as long as needed. If HomeDepot didn't help people out to their cars, YardBird would go out of its way to do so. If HomeDepot ignored a strained looked on a customer's face, YardBird would commit to look for unhappiness in any customer and resolve to do whatever it took to help them. As a result of decades of cummulative cultural habits, YardBird statistically dominated HomeDepot in the markets in which they competed in Northern California. When the owner of YardBird fell sick, however, they sold out to Home Depot. Initially, YardBird employees were told by HomeDepot management that they wanted to learn the special sauce that YardBird had created whcih made them much more effective than HomeDepot. But when the rubber hit the road, lower level managers were unable and unwilling to assimilate anything from former YardBird employees. The same behaviors that helped YardBird succeed against HomeDepot were discouraged at HomeDepot, and ultimately the ideas being YardBird were lost as their former employees left HomeDeport or gave up.
I believe that even when unhealthy habits are promoted within a culture, it is difficult to set that business on the idealized track even when a new boss comes in. If Microsoft or Apple do things in their culture that become proven through research to be inefficient or even destructive, it may be difficult to change directions. I'm not saying that little things can't be changed, but I am saying that major overhauls of culture could be nearly impossible in most businesses. Take Google for example. Like YardBird was the anti-HomeDepot, they seem to be the anti-Microsoft. Imagine if a boss came in and they took away the free lunches because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if they took away the 20% of time to work on personal projects because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if strict schedules were enforced because that is what worked somewhere else. Imagine if working with the government and handing over data about customers was insisted upon. I think that what would happen is that there would be a major loss of inertia as people either left or lost their ability to function effectively in the new environment.
In a future post I'll diagram how this concept impacts businesses.
Jim Collins in his book Good to Great talked about a flywheel concept, which is a lot like the idea of a train. It is the idea that something that weighs a whole lot moves very slowly in the beginning, and then someday it is a juggernaut of force and nobody can believe the inertia that it has. This perspective applied to business describes many businesses that seem to grow very slowly, but one day are huge and unstoppable. One of the key ideas is that there were not abrupt changes in what the businesses did as they reached their crescendo. In contrast, businesses which have a lot of momentum can lose it when they make changes.
One thing that jumps out to me is how the element of culture is relevant to maintianing a momentum building business. The other day I spoke about Steve Jobs and John Sculley. Could it be that although Steve Jobs was initially characterized as a tyrant, his business had become so culturally attuned to functioning that way that it could not function otherwise?
Culture seems to get ingrained in people wherever they work. I have found that AT&T people in Utah are characterized by high ethics. They take that with them wherever they go. I have found that people involved with Computer Associates (CA) are frequently dishonest, regardless of the level of management that they are found at. I have found that people at Arthur Anderson were stiff and rigid in their thinking about problems. I found that people at Ernst & Young were more adaptive in thinking about the same problems. I have found that people from Cerner are brash.
One question that comes to mind is how these cultural inculcations affect leaders--or even employes--from one organization as it relates to their succeeding in another. I once heard it said that there was a rule on the street that you should never hire a person out of IBM until they had failed at their first job outside of IBM. The idea being that although they were highly capable, they generally unable to succeed culturally at other organizations as they left IBM with a preconceived notion about how things work in the world. With some self reflection and self awareness caused by failure, however, they became better positioned to share their skills in future endeavors (without failing or destroying the company that they went to).
Culture in the corporate world is a hard habit to break. My father worked at a building materials super store called YardBird. YardBird competed with Home Depot. They built their whole ethos around being whatever Home Depot was not. If Home Depot didn't let their people move from their stations to help others, YardBird would let people go everywhere in the store to help a customer and stay with them as long as needed. If HomeDepot didn't help people out to their cars, YardBird would go out of its way to do so. If HomeDepot ignored a strained looked on a customer's face, YardBird would commit to look for unhappiness in any customer and resolve to do whatever it took to help them. As a result of decades of cummulative cultural habits, YardBird statistically dominated HomeDepot in the markets in which they competed in Northern California. When the owner of YardBird fell sick, however, they sold out to Home Depot. Initially, YardBird employees were told by HomeDepot management that they wanted to learn the special sauce that YardBird had created whcih made them much more effective than HomeDepot. But when the rubber hit the road, lower level managers were unable and unwilling to assimilate anything from former YardBird employees. The same behaviors that helped YardBird succeed against HomeDepot were discouraged at HomeDepot, and ultimately the ideas being YardBird were lost as their former employees left HomeDeport or gave up.
I believe that even when unhealthy habits are promoted within a culture, it is difficult to set that business on the idealized track even when a new boss comes in. If Microsoft or Apple do things in their culture that become proven through research to be inefficient or even destructive, it may be difficult to change directions. I'm not saying that little things can't be changed, but I am saying that major overhauls of culture could be nearly impossible in most businesses. Take Google for example. Like YardBird was the anti-HomeDepot, they seem to be the anti-Microsoft. Imagine if a boss came in and they took away the free lunches because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if they took away the 20% of time to work on personal projects because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if strict schedules were enforced because that is what worked somewhere else. Imagine if working with the government and handing over data about customers was insisted upon. I think that what would happen is that there would be a major loss of inertia as people either left or lost their ability to function effectively in the new environment.
In a future post I'll diagram how this concept impacts businesses.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The Review Process
I am getting my first taste of what it is like to go through a review process this semester. In some ways I am pleased because I get a chance to interact with people who in some cases know more about my topics of interest than I do, and they push me in directions to learn more.
One downside is that it can be stressful. As part of the seminar we are in, we currently have a total of 6 reviewers for the essays we are working on. Each reviewer looks at about 5 different factors and comments in each area. That isn't a big deal until you commit yourself to responding to every comment they make in a revised draft as well as work them into a new draft. Think about the numbers involved here--if you have 5 factors x 2 comments, that is 10 comments per reviewer and 6 reviewers, so a total of 60 comments to address. It was hard enough to re-write the essay, let alone sit down and address 60 different comments. You do more writing addressing what you did to address the shortcomings than you did to write your whole essay.
One downside is that it can be stressful. As part of the seminar we are in, we currently have a total of 6 reviewers for the essays we are working on. Each reviewer looks at about 5 different factors and comments in each area. That isn't a big deal until you commit yourself to responding to every comment they make in a revised draft as well as work them into a new draft. Think about the numbers involved here--if you have 5 factors x 2 comments, that is 10 comments per reviewer and 6 reviewers, so a total of 60 comments to address. It was hard enough to re-write the essay, let alone sit down and address 60 different comments. You do more writing addressing what you did to address the shortcomings than you did to write your whole essay.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Sculley vs. Jobs
One story that will always stick out in my mind is that of John Sculley removing Steve Jobs. Many managers use frameworks through which they make decisions, and some of the ones we use in business providing interesting lenses through which to see the events that happened in the lives of these men.
On the one hand you have Steve Jobs. Many years ago, before the success of the iPod and the new generation of Macs, I saw Steve Jobs (probably on the PBS series Triumph of the Nerds) relate that he had hired the wrong guy. The brief background on this statement is that Steve Jobs had hired Sculley away from Pepsi to be a CEO at Apple and their relationship deteriorated to the point that Jobs was stripped of any authority in the company that he had founded. How do like them apples?
It is hard to say who I would have sided with then or even now. Without knowing either man personally, I am cautious of giving an assumption of correctness to either one.
Steve Jobs was a man who, in the media, was portrayed as egotistical and maniacal in the management of his people. In that sense, I think the average person was probably happy to hear that a cocky punk got what he had coming to him.
On the other hand, I like some of the ways he did things. He was always known as the inspirer. Nearly 10 years ago I remember hearing that he would explain to his engineer the value of reducing boot time on a computer. A reduction of even 5 seconds would literally result in saved man lives (economically speaking) each day as hundreds of millions of people wait for their computers to boot. Year after year I think about that as I wait for my Windows machines to boot. I always notice that my computer gets slower with each service pack that I install, until my computer doesn't run anymore. I can reformat the thing and start over, but the latest patching will cripple an old computer (and often times my needs are very simple).
Then you have Sculley. Other than Jobs, I can scarcely find anyone that is willing to say something negative about him in the media (other than for taking an ill-advised job with a company under legal investigation). If I were him, I'd probably be happy with that situation. It also makes me uneasy, however. Having held management roles and having had managers, success or failure at any given moment for a company is not necessarily a result of the manager. Sculley succeeded at Pepsi and became their CEO. He bombed at Apple. The Pepsi taste test campaign was brilliant (attributed to him). Other than that, I don't know what he did with certainty. I've known other wonderful men that served in top capacities at major companies, but in some cases they were riding waves of inertia that had little to do with their talents. In other cases, I've seen managers do things where they are clearly the driving force behind success. In still other cases, I've seen managers look good in spite of their ineptness because of people constantly fighting with them to do the actual correct things.
And now things come full circle and Jobs comes back older and wiser and does some brilliant things. He still manages in a way that makes the skin of some people curl. He decides how a product will be and "the public be damned". But much like Nintendo and their similar approach in launching the Wii, he is successful. In these two cases, it isn't that they don't care about the customer, it is just that they have a passionate belief that what they are doing is the right thing to do and they are willing to face criticism for doing it. I've been in those situations myself. Sometimes you know that nobody in the world world would let you do the thing you think is right and so the opportunity only exists if you are in charge. This approach flies in the face of many modern approaches for product design such as crowd-sourcing for innovation. It isn't that one approach is right and one is wrong every time, but sometimes one is better than the other for a given situation.
At any rate, what a head trip it must be for Steve to be back in the driver's seat of the company he was kicked out of, and doing a bang up job at it too. The media portrays him now as a wise, experienced overseer as opposed to the way he was previously portrayed.
Who would I want to work for, Sculley or Jobs? I guess I'll never know. But if I were to launch a product, I'd love to be inspired by Job's high-minded ideals. I'd also love Sculley's perspectives. I guess the real answer is that I'd love to have either as a consultant, but neither as a boss.
On the one hand you have Steve Jobs. Many years ago, before the success of the iPod and the new generation of Macs, I saw Steve Jobs (probably on the PBS series Triumph of the Nerds) relate that he had hired the wrong guy. The brief background on this statement is that Steve Jobs had hired Sculley away from Pepsi to be a CEO at Apple and their relationship deteriorated to the point that Jobs was stripped of any authority in the company that he had founded. How do like them apples?
It is hard to say who I would have sided with then or even now. Without knowing either man personally, I am cautious of giving an assumption of correctness to either one.
Steve Jobs was a man who, in the media, was portrayed as egotistical and maniacal in the management of his people. In that sense, I think the average person was probably happy to hear that a cocky punk got what he had coming to him.
On the other hand, I like some of the ways he did things. He was always known as the inspirer. Nearly 10 years ago I remember hearing that he would explain to his engineer the value of reducing boot time on a computer. A reduction of even 5 seconds would literally result in saved man lives (economically speaking) each day as hundreds of millions of people wait for their computers to boot. Year after year I think about that as I wait for my Windows machines to boot. I always notice that my computer gets slower with each service pack that I install, until my computer doesn't run anymore. I can reformat the thing and start over, but the latest patching will cripple an old computer (and often times my needs are very simple).
Then you have Sculley. Other than Jobs, I can scarcely find anyone that is willing to say something negative about him in the media (other than for taking an ill-advised job with a company under legal investigation). If I were him, I'd probably be happy with that situation. It also makes me uneasy, however. Having held management roles and having had managers, success or failure at any given moment for a company is not necessarily a result of the manager. Sculley succeeded at Pepsi and became their CEO. He bombed at Apple. The Pepsi taste test campaign was brilliant (attributed to him). Other than that, I don't know what he did with certainty. I've known other wonderful men that served in top capacities at major companies, but in some cases they were riding waves of inertia that had little to do with their talents. In other cases, I've seen managers do things where they are clearly the driving force behind success. In still other cases, I've seen managers look good in spite of their ineptness because of people constantly fighting with them to do the actual correct things.
And now things come full circle and Jobs comes back older and wiser and does some brilliant things. He still manages in a way that makes the skin of some people curl. He decides how a product will be and "the public be damned". But much like Nintendo and their similar approach in launching the Wii, he is successful. In these two cases, it isn't that they don't care about the customer, it is just that they have a passionate belief that what they are doing is the right thing to do and they are willing to face criticism for doing it. I've been in those situations myself. Sometimes you know that nobody in the world world would let you do the thing you think is right and so the opportunity only exists if you are in charge. This approach flies in the face of many modern approaches for product design such as crowd-sourcing for innovation. It isn't that one approach is right and one is wrong every time, but sometimes one is better than the other for a given situation.
At any rate, what a head trip it must be for Steve to be back in the driver's seat of the company he was kicked out of, and doing a bang up job at it too. The media portrays him now as a wise, experienced overseer as opposed to the way he was previously portrayed.
Who would I want to work for, Sculley or Jobs? I guess I'll never know. But if I were to launch a product, I'd love to be inspired by Job's high-minded ideals. I'd also love Sculley's perspectives. I guess the real answer is that I'd love to have either as a consultant, but neither as a boss.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Testing My New Web Cam
I picked up this new Logitech camera today at Walmart (while waiting for my oil change). Pretty cool, but the video and sound are out of synch.
Random Thoughts
Today I was going to get my oil changed and I went to Walmart. I thought it was a good idea to save money buy doing it the cheap way at a Super Walmart. Unfortunately, with only one car in front of me they said it would take an hour. That makes me think hard about the value of my time. We should have a service where you sign up for this stuff online (gas too) and people just stop by your house and take care of it.
On the way there I passed a Super K, (Kmart). I wondered if I would use an oil service offered by Kmart. Somehow getting my oil changed at a place once known as "came apart" doesn't seem likely.
Right now I'm installing a logitech quickcam. Despite the fact I have a new laptop. It is installing very slowly. I think they should call it a "slowcam".
On the way there I passed a Super K, (Kmart). I wondered if I would use an oil service offered by Kmart. Somehow getting my oil changed at a place once known as "came apart" doesn't seem likely.
Right now I'm installing a logitech quickcam. Despite the fact I have a new laptop. It is installing very slowly. I think they should call it a "slowcam".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)