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