Management Assessment of Steve Jobs and NeXT

Without a doubt, Steve Jobs is haralded as one of the most influential entrepreneurs of his time. His work and vision helped launch Apple, one of the most recognized names in personal computers and applications. He was a true visionary, and like most big-vision people Steve Jobs had his share of successes and failures. One of his biggest failures was his attempt to "change the world" with NeXT.

During Jobs' initial run with Apple his relationship within the organization took a turn for the worst. The result... Steve Jobs was kicked out. Setbacks are not uncommon for entrepreneurs, and Jobs was going to take his vision and financial earnings to create a start up that would endeavor to bring to market a cost effective computer that would target and change universities for ever. He created NeXT, a tech-company built with some of the most loyal Jobs techies. NeXT never did reach their end goals, and ultimately was bought out by Apple, which brought about "Round Two" for Jobs and Apple.

Jobs' efforts at NeXT was documented in a video. In a sobering look at how genius operates, this video demonstrated how difficult it was for the most brightest innovators to work under Jobs' expectations. His gravitational appeal was so attractive that he almost fooled his team of innovators that the impossible could actually be possible. Reality, on the other hand, dealt a very different set of cards for NeXT and its team.

Knowing myself, I would have definitely signed on to work on a start up with Jobs if he were to ask me. In a time of accelerated innovation and advancement in computers and software, who wouldn't have followed one of the men who started it all? However, once that ether ran its course, and the reality of working under a mad-scientist type genius with lofty goals and visions gave way to impossibility I would have been among the many in the NeXT team wondering if I had hitched my wagon to the wrong horse.

It is one thing to have a vision and shoot for the stars, and for every Steve Jobs and Bill Gates there are probably thousands of unknown casualties lining the hillsides of Silicone Valley. What he did with Apple from the beginning was that one in a million opportunity that happened at the right time with the right people. A hard feat to duplicate in a highly competitive industry. Where Steve failed at his attempt with NeXT was that he tried to go it alone, and by this I mean by severing important ties with other pioneers like Microsoft and Apple. The foundation for success was already laid out with these giants, and a partnership with these companies would have been the key to success for NeXT. However, Jobs' pride and arrogance led him into an uphill battle with very little support. He had the money to back him, but he needed the network to make his vision a reality.

In my Management Assessment Profile, a keyed in on a few characteristics that would have not bode very well with Jobs' NeXT adventure. First off, I like an established structure with established rules and guidelines to build off of. I don't fancy building an organization from scratch when there are many organizational structures already in existence that could serve as a guide to success. I need to be able to create my path from a solid foundation, and NeXT never seemed to grasp their foundational vision and structure.

Secondly, I am financially motivated. This  would have prompted me to join forces with a 30 year old billionaire, but once I saw the ship sinking I would have been one troubled employer... especially when I witnessed such extravagant waste in the early ages of development.

Finally, I am a loyal team player with a very realistic view point. It would have torn me apart to see NeXT implode from within when we were all so hungry for success. It would have been a hard pill to swallow if I would have found myself out of a job while Jobs jumped ship back to Apple in all its splendor.

For me, I would have loved to have been a part of the sales team in Steve's meetings. I would have had no problem telling him that the product is not as advertised and I cannot take a less than promised product to market. I would have loved to have been that voice that said "Look guys, you set this venture in motion, and I have some serious buyers who are willing to purchase this computer, but you need to either come to the table with what you set out to build, or face the reality that this just isn't going to work". Basically, give me something to sell, or quit blowing a lot of smoke.

There is no doubt Steve Job's influence changed our world. However, even the strongest of entrepreneurs have their pros and cons.

JP

Reflective Analysis

According to Carl G. Jung's theory of psychological types people can be characterized by their preference of general attitude, perception, and functions of judging, :

• Extroverted (E) vs. Introverted (I)
• Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N)
• Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F)
• Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P)

Using these four dichotomies 16 different combinations, or personality types, can help describe an individual's personality characteristics. I am an ENTP.

ENTP - Extraverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Perceiving. Yep, this is me... to a "T".

The ENTP description states that my type is clever, verbally as well as cerebrally quick, innovative and ingenious. I enjoy being stimulated by physical or intellectual things, problem solving, and being described as an optimist. I tend to question authority, and am extremely loyal. ENTPs have a need have areas of expertise, excellence, and uniqueness. We are competitive in nature.

So, that being said... why is there a need to classify people into 16 different categories? What's the purpose or point? The answer... understanding. Breaking down the multitude of cultural, religious, ethnic, and gender characteristics that define us all into 16 useful generalizations can help us understand ourselves as well as those we interact with. This isn't a pinpoint, cookie-cutter science of classification, but a generalization of certain personality traits we share and exhibit. 

At our very core existence we are social creatures. We depend on interacting with others for our very survival (even the extremely isolated mountain man relies on others from time-to-time). If we are to succeed in this life, by whatever definition we place on the word, we would be better equipped if we can better understand those in which we are in contact with. If we are to be leaders... it is even more important to know our followers. 

In my office we are few, but effective. We don;t have the luxury of hundreds of employees milling around a complex organizational structure. We are 5, maybe 7 strong at our highest peek of performance. This is a ripe environment to learn and understand each other's strengths and weaknesses... and to evoke the best from each other. For example, my sales manger is meticulous, driven, and focused... but rather naive to the world and others. Understanding her and how she perceives her surroundings helps me to find her motivational buttons and get her to push her limitations. My production manager is bull-headed, and full of pride... but extremely talented and dependable. I wouldn't approach these two extremely different individuals with the same tactics. Instead, I would be more successful catering to their individual personalities. 

More important than understanding others is understanding yourself. How I react to those around me, learn from my interactions, and seek to improve myself will better enable me to grow as a person. As Jung described I am clever, but this can work against me if I am not aware of the pros and cons of being clever and when to use it. I may be intuitive, but am I willing to learn from others? Am I fighting the "system" to make it better, or is it just in my nature to do so? Knowing the answers to these questions will help me be a better all-around individual. And for me and my definition of success, the more intend I am with who I am the better service I will be to those in my life.

JP

The Future of Organizational Development

Organizational Development (OD) is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase efficiency and effectiveness in order to better achieve strategic goals. In the past 50-60 years we have seen a dramatic and exponential growth in technology, communication, and the need for speedy decision-making ability. Some could argue that the rate of change has surpassed the ability to keep up for large, traditional organizations. OD has been proven to be an effective solution bridging the gap between forward progress and stagnation.

In an ever changing world we can all agree that organizations, large and small, need to embrace change and evolve with the environment in which they exist. Moving towards a more efficient and effective state of being can be a costly, time consuming, and daunting task with layers upon layers of development and improvement... but necessary to remain competitive. Change is never an easy undertaking, but with the right help from an OD practitioner and a solid game plan it can be manageable.

OD and OD consultation has also grown as an industry. In economic terms OD fills a need, or demand by supplying organizational skills, techniques, and practices that can be implemented over a period of time to streamline processes, mitigate waste, and improve efficiency. Brown offers two trains of thought to this supply and demand scenario of OD in the last chapter of his book An Experiential Approach to Organization Development... OD is a rapidly changing field keeping up with the times and OD as a fad that will become irrelevant.

From what I now know of OD I lean towards the "rapidly changing field keeping up with the times" for several reasons. First and foremost, I can see the very real and necessary need for change in America's Organizations, infrastructure, and political system. All three of these tie in together to some degree, and all three are in need to "keep up with the times".

Let's talk about our Nation's organizations. There are some that get it - the need to evolve and find solutions to cope with change in a positive way. Google, Facebook (social media as whole for that matter), Amazon, Costco... these companies have made significant changes within their organizations to improve the way business is conducted. It is not a coincidence that these are relatively newer corporations that were born into a technological age. They understand the marketplace on a global scale and have shown the ability to recognize the need to be fluid and adaptive. While these organizations represent the tip of the iceberg in corporate innovation how many other corporate organizations are too large, or too steeped in tradition to break the chains of "our way of doing business", vertical organizational structures, and wasteful spending of both time and money? Again, change is not easy and OD requires that everyone involved participate and buy into the OD changes for these efforts to take hold and grow. Sure, you could spend billions in upgrading technology and automation, but you need the operators, partners, suppliers, and customers to believe in the changes for them to work in favor of efficiency and effectiveness.

Take a look at our infrastructure. In December 2012 I spent a well deserved port visit in Dubai while serving on the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower. My first visit in a far-away land. I witnessed architectural feats I didn't even know were possible, clean city streets lined with glistening taxi cabs on 6 and 7 lane superhighways, and growth in progress. There were light-rail trains floating on air and man-made islands. I got to see the view from the world's tallest building. The sense of awe stirred the very nature of my national pride because I was standing in the midst of a culture that thrived on new ideas, possibilities, and forward thinking. That same year I drove from Virginia to Martha's Vineyard, passing through New York, with my family. My children had never seen the Big Apple and I was excited to share this experience with them, but as we approached the Big City I noticed something that stuck out like a sore thumb... the city was crumbling. Trash piled up on the highway medians. Buildings looked decrepit and old. We passed an old Amtrak Train that looked like it was on its last leg stranded on an overpass waiting for its turn to cross a bridge. With the image of Dubai still fresh in my mind this sight of our beloved and most recognized city in America hurt my heart. There is no other industry in our great country that needs to accept change than our infrastructure, and we could use a good dose of OD to get started.

Finally, without getting too political, our political system itself is in need of change. We have been promised change. Campaigns have been run and won on this idea of change. However, there is still so much waste and stagnation in how we manage our country. Our government is huge, and to the average person looking in it is understandable why apathy has replaced encouragement. But to the OD practitioner... here lies the greatest opportunity in disguise!

Changes comes no matter what we do to prevent it. We are either proactive about change or reactive... which seems to be more the case. The idea and concepts of organizational development is real and meaningful. The idea that all processes can be improved upon is ancient, but the practicality of changing for the better is in the hands of the organization. There is help and with help there is hope. OD may change its face, or adapt to whatever terminology defines it, but the concept of continuous improvement is ever-present. We can either embrace change and make it a part of our daily lives, or we can choose to ignore it and get passed by. Either way... something is going to change.

JP

Transformational Strategies

Leading change in today's fast paced world is tough. Not only are we experiencing new paradigms in economic and geo-political fluctuations but we are forced to learn and accept new technologies, innovation, and communication methods... on the fly. Too often change is forced upon an organization due to a lack of willingness to prepare, unforeseen circumstances, or just being stuck in outdated ways of doing business. Whatever causes the need for change it is a tough undertaking to successfully lead the change initiative in a positive direction.

This week we researched a few remarkable examples of organizations who transitioned through change. We looked at Home Depot and how Robert Nardelli impacted this giant in both positive and negative ways. We read a story of a furniture company who reengineered his team's approach towards  customers, and we listened to General Stanley McChrystal, US Army retired, discuss how he had to make drastic changes in himself as well as his leadership techniques post 9-11. These were some powerful examples of leading through transition. The one clear message I learned from all these examples was the importance of sharing the vision and gaining confidence in the movement.

Robert Nardelli changed Home Depot when he took the helm as CEO in 2000. His style and strategy was process driven and he effectively streamlined and automated many of Home Depot's processes. This saved the company millions of dollars, but he failed in the long run. Why? He didn't share his vision with the thousands of employees who would be forced to work in a new, changing environment. He didn't share his vision, or his vision didn't include the culture of the Home Depot family.

Jim McIngvale, owner of Gallery Furniture in Houston, TX, was forced to reengineer his business strategy in the face of a nationwide recession. He never lost focus on the opportunity Gallery Furniture had, and he needed to make some changes in the culture of his employees to see this vision through. It took redesigning the sales process, incorporating technology, changing the mindset of his sales staff, and redirecting production in a safer, more efficient operational direction. He made his vision known, and through a series of training programs, reenforcement of small successes, and a continuous desire to adapt to a new breed of customer. The results of his shared vision effectively changed the culture of his employees, revamped their sales approach, reduced delivery reworks, improved safety records and employee wellness, and reduced his inventory. McIngvale lead change for his organization by never quitting on his vision for what could be.

Genreal McChrystal, after almost 30 years of serving as an Army Officer, had to readjust his leadership style after the attack of September 11, 2001. His command spanned continents, employed new technologies that had yet been battle tested, encompassed a broad range of ages, sex, and experiences. He had to learn to lead all over again in order to carry out his mission. What made him successful was his ability to relearn how he viewed leadership. He learned from his troops. He gained trust through superior communication over a range of media. And, he shared his vision up and down the chain of command. Trust in combat is just as important than the equipment used to fight, and he had to learn how to build mutual trust in a "new breed" of soldier. He discovered that men will only follow a vision if they know about it, can understand it, and believe it has the best intentions. He succeeded, and many lives saved can be attributed to his ability to learn how to lead in new, unprecedented times of change.

Being a leader in these times does not mean being right, it means acting right. Being able to incorporate new ideas, innovation, and technology and make them work to produce positive results takes determination, hard work, and vision. It is the shared vision that can change a culture. This is the face of "new leadership". Being able to identify the need for change, make the right choices to effect a change strategy, and sharing this vision with those who will be instrumental in making change happen. Communicating vision to those you lead is the foundation for leadership moving forward in this fast paced world.

JP

Leading System-Wide Change - What Makes a Leader

"People do not decide to become extraordinary. They decide to accomplish extraordinary things." ~ Sir Edmund Hillary

How exactly does one become a leader of industry? What is it that separates the few from the many? Some would argue it takes an unparalleled desire to succeed, a tireless work ethic, or the ability to transform dreams into reality. Our world is filled with over 6 billion people, yet there are very few success stories in comparison. So, what does it take to be a leader and effect change?

When I think of leaders who have changed the world I think of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mahatna Ghandi, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela. People who over came incredible odds to accomplish extraordinary things. Thomas Edison patented over 1,000 ideas, products, and concepts including the light bulb. To me that is incredible because I couldn't imagine a world lit by candles and oil lamps. I wouldn't be writing this blog on my Mac using Google Blogger without the visions of ordinary men who created extraordinary things. Leaders become who they are by doing things other people haven't done, aren't willing to do, or haven't thought of yet... and they do it better than anybody else.

By definition, being a leader means you have to lead people in a direction. You have to have influence over others to want to follow you. You have to lead by example. Jim Rhone, one of my favorite authors and motivational gurus, said "if you want to be successful help others around you to become successful". Ideas and visions are only ideas and visions until they become action, and that takes people working together towards a common goal.

Obstacles are opportunities for a leader. I can't think of too many people who became leaders of industry without fighting an uphill battle. The illusion is that these people made it look easy. Where the masses may only see the results they seldom see the rocky, uphill battle to achieve the level of success they are in awe of. When Bill Gates dropped out of college, turned down a job with IBM, and began writing software and building computers in his garage his family thought he was crazy, but this is what it sometimes takes to effect change. No one could do what Bill Gates did... until he showed the world what he could do. His efforts effectively changed the world.

Not all leaders create change, and change is never easy. It is human nature to find the easy way. No one searches out the most difficult path, but when trying times are upon us it takes people with vision, guts, and determination to push through and use change to make things better. This is also a characteristic of leadership. When Nazi Germany was beating the British in WWII Churchill didn't throw up his hands and say "well, we gave it our best lads". No, he said "Once more into the breaches dear friends!" and lead a country against a powerful force to changed the course of war. He gave hope through action, and lead the minds and hearts of the English to rally up and fight through the toughest of odds. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things... this is what makes a leader.

I am a leader... not in the sense of Bill Gates, Churchill, or Ghandi, but I have a responsibility to my family, colleagues, and God to be a leader. My eyes are open to the struggles of raising a family and providing for them, finding solutions to problems at work, and walking in the path laid before me by God. None of these are easy, and it takes hard work, discipline, and a focus on what I believe is the right thing to do. For me, failure is not an option, which doesn't mean I won't fail, but I will get up more times than I get knocked down. I will continue to learn and grow as a person and do what I can to make those around me better. One person can't change the world, but if you can establish a good example for others to follow great things can happen. This is what it means to be a leader.

JP

Self-Managed Teams

Incorporation of teamwork is a growing ideology in today's organizations. We can do more than me, and teamwork combines the talents of the many versus the skills and abilities of one to accomplish more "work" in a shorter amount of time. Utilizing teams, more specifically high-powered teams comprised of highly skilled people working towards an objective, can cause obstacles for traditional styles of leadership. In essence high-powered teams are fully capable to manage themselves thereby shifting the purposes of leadership to guider-ship (trademark patented word not to be used without the expressed permission of Jody Powell Inc.).

There are many benefits to a self-managed team. The purpose of a team is to accomplish a goal, or purpose. These goals and purposes are laid out into objectives by project managers. Once the objectives are shared with the group get out of the way and let the team do what they do best. Simple, clean, and efficient. This would probably drive middle-managers and traditional leaders crazy. Where is the accountability? What if they accomplish their goals in a completely different way than upper management had anticipated? Who do we hold accountable?? The answers to these questions lie within the team itself. The team does not generally make the goals or objectives to hit (although it would be a good idea to include the team in on the ideas and direction planning process). The team purpose is to make it happen, and the self-managed team knows how best to do that very thing. Set the team in motion, provide guidance when necessary, track progress, and be of support and assistance... this is all that needs to be done to "manage" a self managed team.

Personally, I worked in self-managed work teams in the Navy. This typically happened when our Leading Petty Officer was a technical expert and used the junior people, with varying levels of experience, to accomplish tasks. The goal of this type of SMT was to keep Chief out of the team. Chiefs always had a tendency to over-analyze and micro-manage, so to counter that the team work autonomously to accomplish our mission feeding the Chief the information he/she required.

Currently I work in a similar situation. I am the team leader for a store in Corpus Christi, TX with our corporate offices in San Antonio about 2 hours up the highway. We have three sales people including an assistant and 4 production team members. We have goals and projects passed down from corporate and we carry them out how we see fit. As the team leader I make the reports to my boss and inform home of our progress. We manage our own issues, find solutions to our market's unique obstacles, and work interdependently with each other to accomplish our goals. We vary in our collective expertise, but compliment each other with different skill sets. I didn't realize until this week's lesson on SMTs how many similarities we share with Brown's definition, but we are very much an autonomous unit.

Managing a self-managed team requires more guidance than leadership in the traditional sense. Brown describes upper management as a support team in this scenario, which is exactly what is needed for a SMT to operate at capacity... support. Being able to track production and effort is part of team management. Keeping the team on track is a shared responsibility of the internal team leader and the support team. Overall, self-managed teams run themselves. Point them in the right direction, provide as much support as the team needs, and let them do their thing.

JP

Goal Setting and Feedback

Many motivational speakers have shared a variation of the phrase, "No one plans to fail, but many fail to plan". Why is this such a strong message that so many use it as fodder to get people on track for success? Simply, if we don't know where we are going we will never truly know when we get there. You have to have a plan. In this sense a plan is a goal, or something to be attained. In order to get somewhere or something there is usually a series of steps to be accomplished in order to get there.

Without doing a study in human evolution or socialization I would wage a stiff bet that as long as man has been mobile he/she has devised some sort of map to chart progress, report new discoveries, and help others save time by avoiding pitfalls along the way. The earliest humans might have written the directions to a food or water source on cave walls. In the discovery age when explorers were searching new trade routes to India they charted their courses and passed on the information to following travelers. Today, we have our Garmins and smart phones with Google Maps. Charting our courses and passing on information is probably as old a human trait as utilizing fire. We have a need to know where we are going, and the best way for us to get there is to have a plan or goal.

Goals can be big or small, long range or short sided. Goals are our mental maps to get what we want. Establishing little goals in the effort to accomplish larger ones requires feedback and evaluation from time to time to ensure we are tracking for our ultimate destination. Feedback throughout our progression is important to us. Whether we hit a landmark on our way to the watering hole, took that left at Albuquerque, or received some praise from our bosses/coworkers for a job well done feedback is important for us to measure our advancement. So, goals are planning strategies written down and feedback acts as reinforcement along the way.

Brown discusses in his book, An Experiential Approach to Organization Development, that younger generations require more frequency in feedback. He claims that "a combination of goal setting and feedback on individual performance has a positive effect on performance". Brown also alludes to a trend that older generations are less dependent on feedback as younger folks. This does not surprise me in the least. If we take a simple look into how older generation acquired information and compared this to how we get information today we can see why younger people tend to respond better to instantaneous feedback. When my mother was working towards her Masters Degree in the 80's I distinctly remember her spending hours at the library, researching books and journals, following one source to another and tracking her progress on a Big Chief tablet. She put in considerable time and effort to find answers to her questions, and once her knowledge was attained it was reinforced by the fruits of her labor. Today, as I am working on my Masters Degree I can Google, Wiki, Hunt Library Online, and click away to find instantaneous answers to my questions with little effort. A smart person would have that lingering internal voice inside their heads questioning the information source, if the information is relevant, or pertains to the ultimate goal being pursued. So, for me I require feedback from my sphere of influence. My theory is this... when less effort is made to attain information the higher the need for feedback.

We live in a fast paced world and the speed in which information is available to us can be overwhelming (and it's only getting faster). When we set our sights on a goal and make a plan we need to be aware of our progress. I am reminded of Chris Kyle's book, American Sniper, when he was discussing that being an 8th-inch off target on the scope could mean feet off target down range. Little miscalculations now could mean huge deviations down the road. This is why, in my life, it is important to plan accordingly, make goals and track them, and seek feedback throughout my process. We all want to get somewhere in the least amount of time, and the best laid road map comes with a series of landmarks. Planning to succeed requires planning to achieve. Set goals, accomplish them one at a time, seek feedback, and get to where you are going. In the immortal words of General George S. Patton, "we are either moving forward or we are moving backwards". Stagnation is not an option... plan accordingly.

JP