Facebook's Zuckerberg modeled management style after Steve Jobs - Page 2

By reductio ad absurdum.

I think Steve's vision was always there... he has always been known for moving forward with the next great thing... this is the reason why he wanted Sculley to move away from the Apple 2 and press forward into new markets. Steve would have had them swap out the old system for something new long before it actually did occur... but that is where I see the real benefit... I highly doubt that Apple, with Steve, would have developed a system that was as good as OS X. I think that Steve's time with NEXT helped him develop a great system. Apple had dropped many a system project prior to Steve, NEXT and OSX.

In other words, you don't know shit.

Sure, if that helps you sleep better.

You do realize that by using reductio ad absurdum as your argument that you have basically disproved yourself.

Oh my, you have a dim view of humanityor at least that segment of humanity made up of Facebook users. I mean, I totally understand if you choose to not use Facebook for whatever reason(s). (I, myself, resisted for a long time, until some friends insisted that I get an account, so they could keep in touch with me. I said, okay, but only if they set it up for me. They did. It was very sweet of them. ) What I don't get is the harshness of your tone towards those who find Facebook useful and fun. Sure, some users are stupid, and some are tools. But when you use those words to describe all Facebook users, then you're also talking about my friendsand my friends are very nice people (they wouldn't be my friends otherwise). And when people talk shit about my friends, I feel the need to speak up in their defense. But in general, I ask you to be nice. I mean really.

Mark Zuckerberg should be embarrassed to compare himself to Steve Jobs even as a joke. Mark Z. is to Steve Jobs as an earthworm is to a lion.

This is no surprise. Markets are always valuing expected future growth opportunities.

Not to say that those expectations will pan out - markets can and do get it wrong - but higher growth expectations will generally be accompanied by higher P/Es.

I think that every CEO should attempt to emulate Steve Jobs. We'd have a far more successful corporate sector if they did.

I haven't seen the movie, but the fact that the actor playing him looks 100% less obnoxious and has a 100% less "punch me in the face" face, looks like a plus.

I agree, though I'd be a little more precise: Every CEO should emulate his drive & vision. It should come as no surprise to anyone that he can strike fear into the hearts of his employees. But that is not what makes him great or successful. In other words, a budding (or seasoned) CEO shouldn't look at Steve and say, "Wow, he's an uncompromising jerk! But, he's at the helm of the most successful company in the industry! So if I want his kind of success, I have to be an uncompromising jerk as well!"
I think a CEO can have drive and vision and still be a nice guy/gal. In other words, I disagree with whoever said that being irreverent and cocky is a prerequisite for success.

It's good to have idols and mentors, and to stand on the shoulders of giants. But in the end, it's your own two feet that you have to stand on; it's your own vision that you have to realize and it's your own drive that can power that vision.

Hahahaha! Agreed.

I work in a creative field and Jobs' attention to detail is par for the course. Creative, driven people have the same, nearly obsessive, attention to detail. If you aren't like that and work with a person who is, it can be maddening, and at times seem pathological. It's not- usually. But this is what makes these people great. They know what is required to be great, they can see it and they demand it of you too. In the case of Jobs, you can add experience and proven success on top of it and his success is exactly why he is the real deal. Without the success he's just another silicon valley carnival barker who coulda, shoulda, woulda but never did.

It doesn't seem Mr. Zuckerberg has these same exacting and artistic personality traits that really sets Jobs apart. Because of this, I think Mr. Zuckerberg may be more in the mold of a Bill Gates, which ain't exactly chopped liver. But Gates himself said he would give almost anything to have Jobs' sense of taste and style- things that money can not buy.

I think you're pretty much right. People take the wrong lessons from Jobs sometimes.

In the end I suspect Jobs can be an "uncompromising jerk" because he's right (mostly) and has a strong vision of the future he wants to create. I'd venture to say that most CEOs simply don't have that kind of vision. Many have spent so much time politicking their way to the CEO's office that they know more about corporate politicking than about great product and/or service vision. They don't have a real vision. To be sure there are a few on par with Jobs albeit without his "rock star" presence and persona. But very few.

There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.

He does seem to be a bit of a psychopathic personality from what I've read of him, and the way he operates Facebook.

Here, here, excellently put.

Time will say nothing but I told you so, as a poet once said, I think you ve made the right choices, if more people made such choices the world would be a better place.

Hmmm. A social network run by a sociopath. Interesting, disconcerting and, oh, the irony!!!

Whether He existed or not is irrelevant to being "bigger than Jesus".
The comparison is how many people now know something of Jesus, not how many people knew something of HIm 2000 years ago.
So to be "bigger than Jesus", one would have to be pretty darn big.

I'd bet that easily less than 1/4 of Facebook users (just picking a number) could tell you could tell you anything about Zuckerberg, if asked.

He wrote "psychopath", not "sociopath".

More telling is the way most younger people use Facebook and Twitter nowadays and their new perceptions of "privacy". Now that's disconcerting.

You can always question a dubious leader, but I find it interesting to observe their droves of followers (wow, Twitter pun unintended).

I thought it was an interesting but fairly average movie. The actor that played Zuckerberg put in a good performance though, the other actors were kinda meh... Except for Justin Timberlake, who intentionally or unintentionally portrayed, quite well, what a douche the Napster guy was (whether the Napster guy is like that in real life, I don't know).

Who said it was relevant?

Why would you post something that was irrelevant?

Boy, I can't slip anything past you!

I was asserting a little poetic license. But, as you called me on it, I did a little research, and I think "sociopath" is more apt, actually. Though I'm not gonna stringently argue this point simply because the difference between the two "-paths" are still debated among psychologists.

So, because of the ambiguity, I'm gonna stick with my poetic license.

This.

not so disconcerting if you consider how "social" FB really is...

From my mac's dictionary:
social: "relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure"
I'm not a crazy FB user either, but honestly, "activities", "people meet", "pleasure"??..

MZ may be a sociopath, but he did realize what many people need, i.e. a way to be "heard" by your x000 "friends" (= people you've seen 1.5 times in your life -- if ever) when all you have to say is "had cold pizza and warm beer for breakfast" -- some might even sympathize!..

Psyco-, socio- take your pick.

I rarely log on to FB, and then usually when some family member's posting has been called to my attention. Yesterday my login was greeted by a screen from FB that offered a quick way to recover my password if I would give them my phone number. If I gave them the number, they also would be happy to text or call me with my password if I wanted. Yeah ... sure. How slimy can these guys get - using false pretenses to obtain my phone number for marketing or God knows what other purposes? It's not hard to find a phone number through different online directories, but our voluntarily providing it to Facebook is tantamount to inviting home invasion.

Yeah. That was pretty insidious of them. Even more so that it was positioned as a "SECURITY ALERT!!!" Certainly the more savvy users will see through that BS and not give their personal phone numbers, but the more naïve/trusting users will actually believe that and gladly give Facebook their phone numbers, because, of course Facebook is concerned for their safety and security!!

What... sort of like what you are doing right now. Gee... I didn't know that everything written on this board was relevant to the conversation... I'll have to be more careful.

I think the comparisons are inevitable and stem from the similarities between the two men (especially Steve Jobs 1.0, before he returned to Apple). Both were very young, took the industry by storm, were insanely rich super fast, incredibly brash and irreverent, etc.

The comparisons are inevitable. It doesn't mean they're correct.

It's like every time there's an up-and-coming NBA superstar (re: LeBron, Kobe, etc.), there's the inevitable MJ comparisons.

It doesn't mean the comparison is apt. Personally, I doubt there will ever be another MJ, the same way I doubt there will ever be another Steve Jobs.

Taking the NBA analogy further, Kobe 1.0 (the Shaq era, before he mellowed) tried VERY hard to BE Michael Jordan. He emulated he perceived notions about Jordan and, well, failed to be the same level of player. Kobe 2.0 has become more of a team player, and has risen closer than anyone else to Jordan plateau, but he needs another championship in his post-prime career to really deserve any comparisons. Simply having rings isn't enough.

Similarly, Zuckerberg 1.0 seems like he's trying pretty hard to be the next Steve Jobs. I mean, it's either Jobs or Gates, right? Who else's success would you strive to imitate in the tech sector? Of the two, Jobs is a lot "cooler" than Gates. However, Zuckerberg 1.0 is emulating Jobs 1.0, as opposed to the wizened post-return Jobs 2.0. Further, he's only emulating what he perceives Jobs to be like and is focusing on being "successful" (like Kobe 1.0 focused on rings). It remains to be seen whether there will be a Zuckerberg 2.0.

True...at this point in time, to compare those 2 men is kind of silly...let's see what Zuckerberg has done in his life when he's 60.

Hmmmm... I think it will take longer than 34 years for Mark to learn anything about charisma...

Because most CEOs are narcissistic ego maniacs and will not emulate someone else.

Its a well known fact he's a social misfit. Who the hell are you that you feel entitled for him to sound to your liking? There are many evil people that will come off as intelligent, friendly, witty, and even charming. Are you going to forget that he oppresses people because he's good at interviews?

deleted