“For their part, most Apple employees seem more than satisfied with Cook. He often sits down randomly with employees in the cafeteria at lunchtime, whereas Jobs typically dined with design chief Jonathan Ive. It is a small difference that speaks volumes about how employees can expect to interact with their CEO. At Apple, Jobs was simultaneously revered, loved, and feared. Cook clearly is a demanding boss, but he’s not scary. He’s well-respected, but not worshiped. As Apple enters a complex new phase of its corporate history, perhaps it doesn’t need a god as CEO but a mere mortal who understands how to get the job done.” A must-read. Quite fascinating.
Hrmpf. Slightly over the top. As if it was a personal sacrifice to let himself be photographed, when it is in fact basic PR.
Now, all this is fine and dandy, but the real test for Tim Cook’s jovial character will come when Apple will face failure. But… Yeah, it may never happen within his lifetime, given how much cash reserves they have secured.
But yeah, one can only judge people on how they react in front of adversity. Anybody can seem nice and competent when things are going fine. A Leo Apotheker or a Stephen Elop seemed competent enough at first…
Edited 2012-05-24 19:18 UTC
Seriously? How?
When he played the “nice Canadian” role, the first month, consulting everyone.
…Then he poured gazoline everywhere and lit an allumette.
Psychopaths always look nice at first.
Yes, I don’t see where the article was going with this. It was clearly a PR stunt – an “Apple cares about its workers” sort of thing – and they were playing to Tim Cook’s perceived character.
There was a suggestion that this contrasted with Steve Jobs’ attitude but the fact that Steve Jobs didn’t visit Foxconn could arguably be said to be playing to his perceived character.
The article is genuinely interesting in some of the details about the changes at Apple, but it reads more like a promotional piece designed to show investors that Tim Cook is a safe pair of hands.
From the details given, it seems less like a new CEO making his mark and more like a former-COO continuing the work Jobs had assigned to him.
Steve Jobs was perfect for the time he was at apple, they needed someone aggressive with focus to bring them out of lethargy that plagued apple in the late 90’s. The Apple of the 2010’s doesn’t need a steve jobs as much. They obviously still need focus which i think Tim Cook has, i don’t think we will see him fall over like Elop or other CEO’s as he has had the mentorship under steve jobs. I think Apple’s future is still incredibly bright that the path laid down by Steve Jobs is a solid one.
I loved Steve Jobs, i think it’s rare to find such passion in CEO’s at that level, i thought he was a creative and an interested individual, proof of which is shown on the polarising effect he had on people who either love him or hate him, better to be loved or hated than to fade into obscurity or to enact a reaction of ‘Meh’ from your peers.
There is a third option: some people love your work and some people disagree with your work(think bill gates/mark shuttleworth). Most valuable people go in the third category.
Think about Love/Hate people are they really better than Strongly Agree/Strongly disagree?