Steve Jobs vs Tim Cook: Analysis of Leadership Styles - Case Study Example

Steve Jobs vs. Tim Cook: Analysis of Leadership Styles By of of Department of Submission Introduction On the 24th of August 2011, Jobs stepped down as CEO, declaring Tim Cook as his replacement. Jobs passed away almost two months after his resignation. Many people expressed uncertainty about the future of Apple without Jobs (Jose, 2014). However, Apple members claim that Cook was truly the dynamo or motivating force a few years before the resignation of Jobs. In his first year as Apple’s CEO, Cook was one of the top ten Business Person of the Year of Fortune 2011. The performance of Cook as Apple’s CEO was evaluated a year after the demise of Steve Jobs (Jose, 2014). Cook is not making an attempt or wanting to be Jobs’s replica and is creating his own brand as the leader of one of the most innovative and admired tech companies in the world. Cook is a stark opposite of Jobs in terms of leadership style—being less sensitive and more of an effective manager. Basically, Steve Jobs is a charismatic, transformational, and visionary leader whilst Tim Cook is a socially responsible, transactional leader. This paper analyses the similarities and differences between the leadership style of Steve Jobs and Tim Cook. Specifically, the paper distinguishes between differing models of leadership, evaluates a range of contexts in which leadership operates, and synthesises from differing models and behaviours an integral approach to ethical leadership practice. Differences in the Leadership and Management Style Traditional rules do not match Steve Jobs’s visionary leadership. Walter Isaacson, Jobs’s biographer, depicts Jobs as a leader espoused by the Great Man theory, with his extraordinary leadership whose utter determination and decision-making skills changed the course of history (Kane, 2014). Jobs was definitely a headstrong and single-minded leader, and the products/services he commanded his organization to create and market altered many people’s lifestyles, as well as the path of a varied group of industries, such as mobile communications, music, movies, publishing, and computing (Steinwart & Ziegler, 2014). Jobs is a prominent personality who is often portrayed as the perfect model of a transformational leader. In contrast, some testimonies depict him as private, enigmatic, and volatile. The leadership style of Jobs was complicated. He was very stubborn when determined, quite self-assured to take great risks, and highly visionary and charismatic to recruit masses of customers and employees in the unyielding quest towards his ambitions. Jobs was also hypercritical, hard-headed, and intolerant or impatient. As stated by Isaacson, Jobs could have been “the greatest business executive of our era,” (Isaacson, 2011, p. 487) yet he was an unpredictable, difficult, and despotic leader. In general, he was the direct opposite of the ‘servant leader’—as Tim Cook is—who is the charitable, benevolent, compassionate leader and who in numerous ways directly opposed the Great Man leadership style (Isaacson, 2011). People recalled Jobs as being difficult and asking too much from his employees, which is completely mismatched with the principles of transformational leadership. Nevertheless, there are some suggestions that followers viewed him as impulsive, rude, and possibly fickle in his assessments of the performance and work of his employees. For instance, Isaacson (2011) said that “a key aspect of Jobs’s worldview was his binary way of categorizing things. People were either ‘enlightened’ or ‘an asshole’; their work was either ‘the best’ or ‘totally shitty’” (Isaacson, 2011, p. 394). Although such portrayals demonstrate the great expectations that transformational leaders place on their members, it does not signify involvement with them. On the whole, the highlight on Jobs’s revolutionary influence on industries alongside the lack of dialogue of ‘empowering’ and ‘interactive’ as relational or interpersonal attributes indicate that it may be vital to differentiate between leaders such as Jobs who revolutionise industries and transformational leaders as regard their followers (Jose, 2014). Basically, Steve Jobs introduced a new leadership model to global industries. He was the “quintessential charismatic organisational leader” (Imbimbo, 2009, p. 76) who held a ground-breaking ambition to build an organisation with an unusually strong following. Jobs believes that charisma is more vital than management, and his mixture of perfectionism and fine-tuning ideas produced extraordinary products and services coupled with a legendary view of Jobs’s aspiration. He left Apple for 12 years and the company was on the brink of bankruptcy before he returned. He then revived the company. Jobs has a tendency to exercise emotional and personal influence alongside a revolutionary, grand vision, a case in point of which was when enlisting Pepsi Cola’s marketing genius John Sculley, Jobs inquired, “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world” (Imbimbo, 2009, p. 77). Tim Cook places emphasis on creating unbelievable products that customers want, just like what Steve Jobs did. However, unlike Jobs, Cook focuses more on high customer satisfaction than market share. Cook acknowledges the importance of Apple employees and the management team and allocates substantial amount of time empowering them and raising their motivation (Svetlik, 2014). Cook accepts and proclaims that he cannot be Jobs, and thus instead of performing like his precursor he has decided to develop and strengthen cooperation with Apple’s talents. He aspires to forge relationships, and although that could result in slower making of important decisions, it also has diminished a malady that stemmed from Jobs’s management practices. Basically, if Jobs was an effective leader, Cook is an effective manager. The management style of Cook can be likened to the qualities of a transactional leader. Transactional leadership, which is also called managerial leadership, places emphasis on the importance of group performance, organisation, and supervision (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Cook is known for his ethical and disciplined management and his capacity to be determined when difficult decisions have to be realized. He believes that being the new leader entails diligence and preparation if he wants to perform effectively and make decisions successfully. Cook holds four major premises that transactional leaders follow: first, individuals carry out their duties successfully when the chain of command is unambiguous and certain; second, employees are driven by a system of reward and punishment; third, acting upon the orders and instructions of the leader is the main objective of the followers; and, fourth, followers have to be thoroughly guided to make sure that expectations are satisfied (Sperry, 2013). Cook is a more silent leader than Jobs. He is a more information-oriented and compassionate leader. He is known to be composed and reprimands employees with a single sentence that quickly communicates his entire message. Differences between Jobs’s Leadership and Cook’s Management As stated previously, Steve Jobs is more of a leader than a manager whilst Cook is more of a manager than a leader. For Jobs, telling people what to do will not motivate them to follow a leader. A leader must fascinate them and draw their full attention, demonstrating how obedience and trust in their leader will fulfil their aspirations (Elliot, 2012). Followers must desire to follow their leader enough to discontinue what they are doing and possibly enter into dangerous or risky situations that they would not usually think of doing. Leaders with greater charisma, like Jobs, can easily draw people to their vision. Part of their efforts to attract followers is guaranteeing transformational gains, such that their adherents will not only acquire concrete rewards but will in some way become improved individuals and a part of a historical change (SAGE, 2008). Steve Jobs was a visionary, which is one of the key characteristics of effective leaders. Similar to numerous radical innovators, Jobs was not trying to repeat or reproduce something that already exists. Such philosophy was expressed with the iPad. Prior to its launching, nobody would have desired a fusion between a computer and a Smartphone (Elliot, 2012). Yet, today, iPad has gripped the hearts and minds of people across the globe and transformed business operations. Another leadership quality that Jobs displayed is the ability to focus. In a world abundant with possibilities and opportunities, ability to focus is a key leadership attribute. Jobs chose a need, created a product and gave his best effort perfecting the product. His capacity to establish an objective and remain dedicated opened up an enormous success (Jose, 2014). Furthermore, Jobs came back to Apple a transformed man and immediately began pursuing his world-changing vision. His fight with interpersonal weaknesses was enduring, yet it was his persistent attempts to improve that made him an effective leader. Had he been closed-minded to disapproval and criticism and incapable of admitting his weaknesses, he would not have developed into a successful leader (Jose, 2014). In the absence of capacity to adapt to change and determination, Jobs would by no means become an iconic leader. Apple had been branded to and identified with him for many years. Executive appointments, marketing techniques, product development, and design all rested on Jobs’s preferences (Isaacson, 2011). The achievements of Apple were not only of Jobs, yet he had received acclaim for majority of these accomplishments, which further puffed-up his legend. Similarly, Tim Cook has been effective managing Apple at a time when the company is a large firm. He has managed iPad and iPhone, which in due course had to go through a more sluggish growth rate (Sperry, 2013). In a quotation posted in The Wall Street Journal, Cook is characterised as not possessing “the quasi-religious authority that Jobs had radiated” (Svetlik, 2014, para 2). Moreover, he is “arguably a better manager than Jobs” (Svetlik, 2014, para 2). Cook has all the makings of an effective manager. He is an experienced businessman. He is systematic, organised, arranged, and more practical about the difficulties of managing a huge company. His operations approach is methodical, meticulous, and organised. He is aware of all the details in each phase of the operations. He conducts very long weekly meetings in order for him to inspect every detail. Even a slight oversight or error was scrutinised thoroughly (Svetlik, 2014). Cook as a manager shows emotional strength by not allowing stress and disappointment become overpowering. He is involved, energetic, and enthusiastic. He radiated a Zen-like composure and does not misuse or squander words (Lashinsky, 2012). There remains an abundance of talented people at Apple. Being a manager, Cook decides to exploit such advantage by delegating to others, holding them responsible, trusting others that they hold usable aspirations, and allowing them to pursue the general corporate objectives. Cook is team-oriented. He takes on a principle of allowing in-house visionary, idealistic leaders to push the company forward (Kane, 2014). At the Worldwide Developers’ Conference, it was noticeable that Cook gave more stage time to his people. He merely did concise introductions for those carrying out the presentation (Gupta & Henderson, 2013), more probably the employees who will be the future leaders at Apple. Evaluation of Range of Leadership Contexts A number of leadership models associate leadership behaviour and style with the context wherein leadership takes place. A popular model of leadership behaviour is Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership. Fundamentally, the argument of situational leadership is that different situations demand different leadership styles and, in a similar manner, that leaders have to be capable of identifying major features of the organisations they lead and afterwards modify their approaches or behaviour to complement the situation (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Figure 1. The Managerial Grid (SAGE, 2008, p. 176) Figure 2. Situational Leadership (SAGE, 2008, p. 177) The theory argues that instead of applying a single leadership style, effective leaders must modify their leadership approaches in line with their followers’ maturity and the specifications of the task. According to this theory, leadership must be capable of deciding whether to focus more or less on the people or on the task, depending on what is required to accomplish the work (SAGE, 2008). There are four leadership styles within this theory—telling, selling, participating, and delegating—and four maturity levels of followers—low maturity (M1), medium maturity (M2), medium maturity, higher competence but low confidence (M3), and high maturity (M4) (Sperry, 2013). Steve Jobs was successful in using the ‘telling’ and ‘selling’ leadership styles. In ‘telling’, a leader tells his/her followers about the task at hand, especially how to do it; in ‘selling’, a leader gives direction and information. Jobs used these leadership styles because of how he perceived the maturity of his followers—low (M1) and medium (M2). People with low maturity do not have the confidence, skills, or knowledge to work independently, and they usually have to be motivated to accomplish the task (SAGE, 2008). People with medium maturity may be eager to accomplish the task, yet they still do not possess the skills to carry out the task in a successful manner. Jobs gets impressed and depressed with people very quickly, both in his professional and personal life. In his persistent quest for the best talents, he successfully formed highly capable organisations. However, he also wasted the possible input of numerous individuals who possibly would-be leaders of the industry (Elliot, 2012). As regards teamwork, Jobs had a very successful method with a gloomy side. He was always task-oriented, always ‘telling’ and ‘selling’. He consistently challenged teams to do the impossible. Few of his tough followers flourished on such method; eventually becoming the best performers who were greatly empowered by the superiority or self-importance they gained from attempting to fulfil the challenge (Elliot, 2012). However, numerous others were unnecessarily disappointed. The disadvantage a leader suffers for such a style is the loss of people who require greater motivation in the process. This style of leadership also weakens the emotional dedication of B performers, who in almost all organisations comprise more than thrice the A performers’ organisational teaming capability (Kane, 2014). Nevertheless, Jobs effectively applied these leadership styles because of the context—Apple at the time of his leadership was trying to recover from years of decline. Recovery of such a scale requires a huge amount of ‘telling’ and ‘selling’ leadership techniques. On the other hand, Cook is more of a ‘participating’ and ‘delegating’ leader because the context has already changed after Jobs’s death—Jobs excessive focus on the ‘task’ rather than his ‘relationship’ to his followers created a pool of talent that is highly mature. According to the situational leadership theory, followers who are highly mature require ‘participating’ and ‘delegating’ leadership techniques, and this is what Cook is doing. He focuses less on giving instructions or information about the task at hand and places greater emphasis on his relationship with his people (Lashinsky, 2012). He delegates decision-making responsibilities to his team but still observes their performance and progress. Another context that Cook is trying to deal with is in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR). During Jobs’s leadership, Apple was widely known for its volatile CSR approach, poor transparency, and poor commitment to the involvement of stakeholders. Cook, who had to deal with several of the problems that were the outcome of Jobs’s leadership style, like the working issues at Foxconn, appears to be more accommodating and flexible about CSR, endorsing a program addressing philanthropy, human rights, and climate change (Gupta & Henderson, 2013). At present, Cook’s management style places him roughly between what economist Michael Porter identifies as the first and second stages in the growth of the importance of business in society. For instance, Cook created a policy to complement employee charitable contributions, supported planned federal program safeguarding LGBT employees, promoted the use of renewable energy sources in the data hub of Apple, etc. (Kane, 2014). Apparently, Cook has a more responsive ethical leadership compared to that of Jobs. Cook is open-minded about ethical dilemmas within and outside Apple. For instance, Jobs seldom agreed to talk with stakeholders. That was one of the responsibilities of Cook as CEO. It is an indirect yet important change—stakeholders today have Cook’s attention. As a whole-- his relationship with policymakers and Wall Street, the formation of a package to equal employee charitable contributions, his move to award shareholders their dividend—Cook’s leadership is starting to become noticeable (Lashinsky, 2012). An Apple old-timer, Cook is preserving majority of the company’s distinctive corporate culture. However, behavioural and attitudinal changes are completely observable; some of them have an impact on the foundation of the crucial product-development system of Apple (Jose, 2014). Altogether, Apple has become largely more corporate and somewhat more flexible and responsive. In certain instances Cook is initiating changes and taking measures that employees gravely desired and the company seriously needed. It is virtually as though Cook is pursuing a bucket list of ethical dilemmas long ignored by Jobs. Cook always gives respect to Jobs’s legacy, yet he does not express regret for taking a new path. Cook is an expert in operational competence, becoming a member of Apple in 1998 to overhaul its severely damaged structure of suppliers, warehouses, and factories (Kane, 2014). In particular, he promoted and reinforced Apple’s relationship with its manufacturers in China. Even as Cook modifies the operating process of Apple, he always makes sure to preserve the corporate culture Jobs built. Questioned at the Goldman investor conference how his management and leadership could transform Apple and what part of its corporate culture he planned to sustain, Cook did not pay heed to the first question and answered only the second: “Steve grilled in all of us over many years that the company should revolve around great products and that we should stay extremely focused on few things rather than try to do so many that we did nothing well” (Lashinsky, 2012, para 26). Most of the employees of Apple appear more than pleased with Cook’s leadership. He frequently talks casually to employees in the dining hall during lunch breaks, whilst Jobs usually conversed with Jonathan Ive, the design head (Lashinsky, 2012). It is a subtle change that reveals a great deal about how members of the company can expect to interrelate or work together with their new leader. Conclusion Clearly, the leadership style of Steve Jobs and Tim Cook is totally opposite from each other. Jobs is more of a visionary, charismatic, and transformational leader, whilst Cook is more of a transactional manager and socially aware leader. Jobs was admired and feared at the same time, whilst Cook is obviously tough, but he is not frightening. Cook is highly respected, but not revered. Optimal operational processes have been ignored and undervalued during Jobs’s tenure; the focus was on its products’ exquisite designs and features and flashy marketing supervised by Jobs. On the other hand, Cook pushes efficiency to a higher level, particularly as Apple expands rapidly. Lastly, in terms of ethical leadership, Cook is more attuned to ethical dilemmas than Jobs. CSR is one of the areas that Cook focuses on due to the belief that social awareness can further enhance the company’s operational efficiency. Some people still doubt whether Cook can live up to the legacy of Jobs. However, it is a good thing that the new Apple CEO is taking steps to create a brand for himself, changing parts of Apple’s corporate culture which he thinks will be the best for its employees and the company. But one thing is for sure— idealism’s reign over Apple is now over; pragmatism is now the name of the game. References Elliot, J (2012) Leading Apple with Steve Jobs: Management Lessons from a Controversial Genius. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Gupta, P & Henderson, P (2013) Insight: At Apple, Tim Cook leads a quiet cultural revolution. [Online] Reuters. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-usa-apple-cook-insight-idUSBRE97L08B20130822. [Accessed 22nd January 2015]. Imbimbo, A (2009) Steve Jobs: The Brilliant Mind Behind Apple. New York: Gareth Stevens. Isaacson, W (2011) Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster. Jose, K (2014) Apple’s leadership strategies: Steve Jobs and Tim Cook. UK: GRIN Verlag. Kane, Y (2014) The Job After Steve Jobs: Tim Cook and Apple. [Online] The Wall Street Journal. Available from: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304610404579405420617578250. [Accessed 21st January 2015]. Lashinsky, A (2012) How Tim Cook is Changing Apple. [Online] Fortune. Available from: http://fortune.com/2012/05/24/how-tim-cook-is-changing-apple/. [Accessed 22nd January 2015]. Lussier, R & Achua, C (2009) Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. SAGE (2008) Leadership in Public Organisations. [Online] Sage Publications. Available from: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/27197_175.pdf. Sperry, L (2013) Effective Leadership: Strategies for Maximising Executive Productivity and Health. UK: Routledge. Steinwart, M & Ziegler, J (2014) Remembering Apple CEO Steve Jobs as a ‘Transformational Leader’: Implications for Pedagogy. Journal of Leadership Education [Online] Vol. 13 Issue 2. pp. 52-64. Available from: http://www.leadershipeducators.org/Resources/Documents/jole/2014_spring/V13I2steinwart.pdf. [Accessed: 21st January 2015]. Svetlik, J (2014) Tim Cook ‘a better manager than Steve Jobs’ new book says. [Online] CNET. Available from: http://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-a-better-manager-than-steve-jobs-new-book-says/. [Accessed 21st January 2015]. Read More