I'm talking about his specific argument regarding management. Attracting creative talent rather than scaring them away/controlling them without any input. His limited definition, the framework for his article and case study, renders his argument nonsensical. That's all I'm saying.
Apple is not known for being a lovey-dovey, Google-esque, give-everyone-one-hour-of-work-time-to-come-up-with-cool-ideas sort of company. Management is heavy-handed, employees are routinely dressed down, their creativity at times unappreciated.
By contrast, the place seems like it'd a nightmare to work at—the opposite of Microsoft.
All I'm saying is the author's argument does not work the way he framed it.
Bookmarks