Much is being written at the moment over the comparison between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and some interesting points are bubbling to the surface.
There is no doubt that commercially both men were successful beyond the dreams of most of us, and if we are to consider purely commercial success or visionary contribution, Steve Job's Apple wins handsomely, and yet leading thinkers of the day, Gladwell amongst them, argue that in 50 years Jobs will be a footnote while Gates will be remembered in statues and history books. Why you might ask? Well one of the fundamental difference between these gentlemen, neither of whom were popular in their organisations when they led them, was that at some point Bill Gates decided to step away and occupy himself in more philanthropic activities, driving such programmes as Malaria and HIV treatment in Africa and other parts of the world, while Jobs stuck to the bitter end in pushing the value and growth of his remarkable company.
This transition for Gates was made easier by his leadership style that was always more delegatory, when compared to Jobs far more hands on approach. Gates recruited and led a team of people who thought as he did, while Jobs managed and refereed fiercely opposed vibrant personalities. These resulted in very different corporate cultures and the ramifications thereof will stay in those organisations for years to come.
The heritage that Bill Gates has left by consolidating and nurturing a team of like minded individuals speaks to a continuity of thought and to a large extent to a sustainability of the corporate identity. But, it is unlikely to ever be able to make the kind of leaps that the dynamic Apple group would, purely because the out of the box thinking that that requires doesn't fit comfortably in most "apple pie" teams. But it does create an organisation that survives leadership changes without trauma. The fiery alternative is exciting and achieves incredible things, but if the leadership personality who balances and manages the personalties leaves, it can immolate itself in its own passion.
When you lead in your context or community, which of these leadership styles do you use. I would argue that any living organisation requires both of these types of leaders at different times in its evolution, and that the rare individual who can master both is a treasure. If, like me, you lack that skill then be alert to the need for the different styles and use them as and when necessary.
Good luck and have fun whether you are changing the world or keeping the home fires burning.
There is no doubt that commercially both men were successful beyond the dreams of most of us, and if we are to consider purely commercial success or visionary contribution, Steve Job's Apple wins handsomely, and yet leading thinkers of the day, Gladwell amongst them, argue that in 50 years Jobs will be a footnote while Gates will be remembered in statues and history books. Why you might ask? Well one of the fundamental difference between these gentlemen, neither of whom were popular in their organisations when they led them, was that at some point Bill Gates decided to step away and occupy himself in more philanthropic activities, driving such programmes as Malaria and HIV treatment in Africa and other parts of the world, while Jobs stuck to the bitter end in pushing the value and growth of his remarkable company.
This transition for Gates was made easier by his leadership style that was always more delegatory, when compared to Jobs far more hands on approach. Gates recruited and led a team of people who thought as he did, while Jobs managed and refereed fiercely opposed vibrant personalities. These resulted in very different corporate cultures and the ramifications thereof will stay in those organisations for years to come.
The heritage that Bill Gates has left by consolidating and nurturing a team of like minded individuals speaks to a continuity of thought and to a large extent to a sustainability of the corporate identity. But, it is unlikely to ever be able to make the kind of leaps that the dynamic Apple group would, purely because the out of the box thinking that that requires doesn't fit comfortably in most "apple pie" teams. But it does create an organisation that survives leadership changes without trauma. The fiery alternative is exciting and achieves incredible things, but if the leadership personality who balances and manages the personalties leaves, it can immolate itself in its own passion.
When you lead in your context or community, which of these leadership styles do you use. I would argue that any living organisation requires both of these types of leaders at different times in its evolution, and that the rare individual who can master both is a treasure. If, like me, you lack that skill then be alert to the need for the different styles and use them as and when necessary.
Good luck and have fun whether you are changing the world or keeping the home fires burning.
No comments:
Post a Comment