I'd like to start this off by asking you both a very simple questions. there's been so much written about Jobs, for years. in so many places. And tons of books. So whjy did you guys decide to embark on this? What was missing out there?
There seems to be a bottomless appetite for stories about Steve Jobs, and in his success and actions over the years that begs deeper understanding. We chose to focus on how Steve grew and changed as leader.
A lot of people felt like they already knew him as a leader. But they didn't have the right idea?
Also, I think Brent's 25-year relationship with Steve, from covering him for the Wall Street Journal and Fortune, gave him a unique perspective.
To me he was always a story in progress. A person who evolved as circumstances changed.
There were qualities that he developed that are under appreciated. For instance, his patience. His ability to command a team. His willingness to follow his nose. These are all keys to Apple's success during his last 15 years, and they all run contrary to the stereotype.
He knew full well that he was going to need a transplant and had placed his name on lists in many different states to increase his chances of finding a transplantable liver that matched his rare blood type. He couldn't rig the system because it is basically anonymous. All he had to do was be able to arrive at a hospital within six hours of being notified. Since he had a private jet, that broadened the number of states where he would be eligible.
No one really knows why he said no, but I would speculate that he did not want his successor to also put himself at physical risk to save someone who most likely would not have a long life-span.
The stereotype of Steve has been so compellingly embraced in popular culture. Do you think he wanted to be perceived as a lone wolf, brash manager, pain-in-the-ass? In some way, he encouraged that view, yes?
Steve had three things he cared about deeply: his family, Apple, and a close circle of friends. You could add Pixar to the list. If you were outside of those four areas, he didn't care much what you thought of him. Also, he thought sugarcoating was a waste of everyone's time. He prioritized ruthlessly. So the further you were away from his key circles, the less he cared what you thought. As a result, yes, he could be seen as a jerk.
Don't you think he was calculating about how he managed Apple's brand, and his own?
I just noticed that people on Twitter think I'm interviewing Steve Jobs' ghost
Although, maybe Brent and Rick can channel him. Seance time?
He was a master impresario, and had a natural knack for pithy marketing. So yes he was very conscious of how anything he said or did would be perceived. His primary intent with all public statements, interviews, and other dealings was to push Apple's products and services. It was his only objective.
He was very calculating about Apple's brand. And he was calculating about how he used his brand to promote Apple's brand. This is one of the reasons that the stereotype established when he was young and brash--the half-genius, half-jerk who didn't care about anyone--hung on so long. After 1987, he shut out the press, with the exception of times when he had a product to promote.
So his focus really was on Apple's brand, even if that meant people thought of him in unfair ways?
Yes. He didn't care what the public thought of him. At times, he was surprised to have hurt someone's feelings. Ed Catmull, president of Pixar, took this as a sign of an occasional social awkwardness, rather than an innate meanness.
He developed patience, which believe it or not, is leadership skill. He learned not to rush things that needed more work. He also learned how to be more sensitive to the physical limits of how much his people could work and moderated his demanding behavior. He still was
a tough boss, but he got better at helping people share his high ideals for whatever Apple made.
A lot of people close to Steve haven't liked past portrayals of Steve. This book was written by two journalists who admire what Steve did, one of whom had the chance to observe Steve closely over 25 years. So we come to the subject with a deep understanding of Steve's motives. I don't think the book is soft on Steve--we go into great detail about a variety of his failures, ranging from tech failures (the Cube) to management failures (the stock-option backdating scandal, the labor collusion case, to name a couple). I hope the Apple execs who like the book like it because it's even-handed, because we understand the technological development deeply, and because it reflects a view of the man they knew well for many years. I hope it's not because they think we went soft. But honestly, I do not know why they like it, and I do not know why they've been so public about it.
One of the things I love about the book are the personal moments, when you're at his home, when he seems so natural and human. But that also raises questions. Here's one from Franc:
There's a big myth that journalists must always be "objective." The best you can hope to be is fair. When you write about a person over years and years, and that subject begins to know you and your work from the frequent encounters, you become more familiar with each other in an almost personal way. So inevitably you begin to see each other as simply people. Steve was a very engaging person, and I am not the only journalist who grew to like him personally, because he was stimulating and often fun to be around. He gave great interviews, and when they were over, he had other interesting things to say. As time went on, over the 25 years I knew him, he met my children and I got to know his family, but not as if we were neighbors or family friends. It just happened over the course of time, and allowed me to see how he behaved in contexts other than an interview or a business meeting. As I said, that's what happens when you interview and write about a person over decades.
If we had come to think about him as the Pixar guy, that would have been unfair to Ed Catmull and John Lasseter, who are the true "Pixar guys". Steve's role there was critical. But Ed and John are responsible for Pixar's success. I think the fair way to remember him, had he not returned to Apple, would have been as a brilliant, inspirational, magnetic leader who was so flawed as a businessman that he couldn't manage a company successfully over the long haul.
Ironically, what surprised me most in what we learned in the process of researching this book, was how many genuine, close and long-term friends Steve had. He only spoke publicly of being friends with fellow Silicon Valley billionare Larry Ellison, but in reality he had closer friends than Larry. They were an important part of his life, even though he didn't spend all that much time with them. But he always
maintained contact.
For some reason, Steve is treated as a static subject in most of what's been written about him. "Steve was X" or "Steve was Y", as if he was that way his entire life. The fact is that he changed deeply over time. He was certain ways as a young man, and he was different ways as an older man. Steve changed so much over time that my co-author, Brent Schlender, believed that Steve changed more than any businessman he covered. This is what I hope this book brings to the discussion about Steve: a realistic sense of how the man changed over time, of who helped that change along, and of how that change remade Apple.
There are a lot of entrepreneurs who have taken license to be -- how to put this? -- headstrong? Do you think the stereotypes of Steve Jobs have emboldened a particular kind of management? And do you think your book will have any impact on that?
I think that a lot of people look at Jobs and think being headstrong is the way to go, but they haven't understood the subtleties of his management skills. Headstrong is a small part of being a successful manager--in fact, it's not necessary at all. It worked for Steve. But that's no reason it should work for someone else. Steve's management style was very much in keeping with who he was, and that should probably be the first thing a manager asks himself--am I posing, or is this really me? If the answer is posing, it's time to find a new style.
Steve was motivated more than anything to feel he had made a solid and positive impact on the world during his lifetime. It was as simple as that. He would say "I just want to put a dent in the universe." The funny thing was, that wasn't hyperbole. He really meant it. But at the same time, Steve was an aesthetic idealist in a very particular way. It was more important to him to create the best product than to sell the most. There's a certain snobbishness and elitism to this notion, but the second time around at Apple, Steve rarely failed to live up to the high standards he set for himself and others. And there is no question that he left his mark on the world.
Among the great moments in the book are the exchanges between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Are there things you learned about Gates while doing the book?
There were things I learned about Gates. The most important thing I came to understand was that his enormous success at creating a business Goliath opened up an avenue of success for Jobs. Gates depersonalized the personal computer, in order to make it cheap and effective for businesses. As a result, once Steve had stabilized Apple, he had a clear field in which to create brilliant products for consumers--no one had been doing that. And he did it so well that those personal consumer products infiltrated the corporate network, and transformed businesses in such a way that Apple became as dominant as it is.
Thanks for tuning in! This was really fun to do. The great thing about Steve Jobs as a subject is that he's still fascinating, and we're still trying to figure him out, even after the book is published!
I enjoyed all the great questions and just wish we had time to answer more.
Before the chat today, read our April 2015 cover story:
Hi all, this is Bob Safian, the editor of Fast Company. I'm delighted to be here at Fast Company's HQ with the authors of the book Becoming Steve Jobs, Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli. We're in for a treat, because no one understands Steve Jobs the way these two gentlemen do. Their book is excerpted in the April issue of Fast Company, and it is available NOW in bookstores and on Amazon. And having read it, it is both fun and really intriguing. It changes your understanding of what makes Apple and Steve so distinctive. Thanks, guys, for sitting down with us.
Adam Swimmer