I found this fascinating. I can’t vouch for its veracity, but I am assuming it is true.
It makes one wonder whether we need to take as many notes as we do. I like the comment about being smart enough to not need to take notes.
When Mr Jobs came back in 1997, in one of the earliest meetings someone was taking notes, writing down what [Mr Jobs] was saying about what we’re doing.
“He stopped and said ‘Why are you writing this down? You should be smart enough to remember this. If you’re not smart enough to remember this you shouldn’t be in this meeting’.
“We all stopped taking notes and learnt to just listen and be part of the conversation and remember what we were supposed to do. And that became how we worked,” Mr Schiller testified […]
There’s a delicate line between taking notes for verbal information that jog your memory, and not paying attention to the words and not fully participating because you are paying attention to your notes.
And yes, I believe Jobs said that, and yes, he was a terrible person to work for.
I, too, can imagine Steve Jobs saying this. But I think it’s an absurd position to take. (Here is where I confess my bias that I’m an unrepentant note-taking enthusiast). I’m annoyed when people who work for me don’t bring notepads to conferences to take notes. Better to have a short pencil than a long memory, I believe Einstein said. In a post last summer started by @ibuys, we had a lively discussion about notes apps and note taking. I included one of my favorite quotations about note-taking from Through the Looking Glass, which I think is apropos here.
I don’t know. Sometimes I find that when I have gone to the trouble to take notes that I end up having remembered the material and don’t need consult the notes. That’s more a near-term situation, though. In my work, I often have to review notes years after I (or someone else) took them. I certainly don’t remember the details of a call or meeting that took place years ago without refreshing my recollection (or confirming it!) with notes.
One of the key components of my trial practice system is my “black box.” Like a fighter plane’s black box, the system is a tool to preserve knowledge about the preparation of a case using the mundane memo to the file. Sometimes those memoranda are photos of the back of an envelope where I scribbled notes during a call. Sometimes, they take the form of a more formal summary of a strategy session or discussion of a tricky point of law. But it’s invaluable to me to have this black box.
So, maybe Steve is right and I’m not smart enough to have been in one of his meetings. But knowing my weakness, I’ll hold my notes close to my heart without shame or embarrassment.
I find jotting down notes is much more likely to mean I remember things and do not need to go back to them (very often).
I am also reminded of classes I have taught with their laptops etc. set up. I started one class “Good morning everyone, you don’t need to take this down but …” And I stopped while every single student’s typing caught up with me. No-one stopped typing.
On the other hand, if you do wind up in court, the Judge is going to put a lot more credence in the contemporaneous notes than whatever ex post factum claims you or some other attendee claims was said / agreed at the meeting.
[quote=“Wrothnie, post:10, topic:36958”]
the Judge is going to put a lot more credence in the contemporaneous notes than whatever ex post factum claims you or some other attendee claims was said / agreed at the meeting.
[/quote]
This may explain the concern about taking notes by Apple senior executives, discoverability.
So was I. A statement like being ‘shameless about stealing ideas’ in an interview could be interpreted very differently if found in someone’s meeting notes months or years later.
There are different types of styles for retaining information. I am a tactile learning. I filled stacks of notebooks in my school days. My fingers travel as fast as my ears. Often, as Wrothnie says, I don’t need to refer back to my notes to remember something. To me, it is a visual imprint in my mind’s eye that I can refer to. My husband is an auditory learner. He concentrates better with his ears. He shuts out extraneous noises. There are those that are visual learners, etc. Neurodivergent folks have altogether different strategies. Most of us use a blend. Judging others by how they retain information seems ill informed at best.
Sure. We have all heard the stories that say as much. If the referenced article is true, that that moment alone would make him a horrible person to work for,
We’ve also read plenty of people who described him as a hard person, but an inspiring person to work with. Someone who made them stretch themselves and do their best possible work. Who raised the bar to where it needed to be.
Cue the image of the iPod dropped into the fish tank, the keynote presentations ripped to shreds but then improved to create those magical moments
The stories you tend to hear are from those who left Apple under a cloud, or because they were fired. Neither Apple, nor Steve Commented on those stories because there’s no way for them to win.
I’ve seen people leave Organisations I’ve worked for spouting left and right about Bad Managers or that the company was crap. I’ve known the inside stories and between dignity, discretion, and confidentiality you can’t and shouldn’t comment.
We don’t tend to hear bad stories from those who worked with, or under, Steve Jobs for a while and then left Apple on their own terms.
No-one who wasn’t there knows what happened or what was said.
There have been so many books, articles, etc about this subject that we don’t need to speculate. It was part of the reason he was fired supposedly. Sure some people thrive under that kind of environment, but most don’t.
I agree about before he was fired by Apple, but you’re talking about Steve Jobs Mark 1 v Steve Jobs Mark 2 (after return to Apple). He matured a lot between those two periods.
The story that started this whole thread was definitely in the Mark 2 stage.
