“There’s not a doubt in my mind that Tim Cook is a better CEO than Steve Jobs ever was,” John Kirk writes for Tech.pinions. “I thought so from day one. But is that the right question? Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves instead whether or not Tim Cook is a leader and whether he can lead Apple forward without Apple losing that rare mixture of genius and madness that made Apple so very unique?”
“Being inefficient was one of the many prices Apple paid for having Steve Jobs as its CEO. Jobs notoriously didn’t tolerate ‘B’ players on his team. He felt they infected the company and soon led to the proliferation of ‘C’ players as well. Jobs wanted only ‘A’ players and he was willing to have Apple be understaffed rather than to fill vacancies with anything less that what he deemed to be the best,” Kirk writes. “The result? Superb products that were always running on the edge, always running late; always in danger of not coming out in a timely fashion or in any fashion at all. This is a very uncomfortable way to run a company. It’s a very inefficient way to run a company. But it also proved to be a very effective way to run a company.”
Kirk writes, “Is Apple running smoother now? Undoubtably. But is that necessarily the good thing everyone seems to think it is? Perhaps not.”
Much more in the full article – highly recommended – here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]