[hef19898]

What is it with all this personality cult about founders, CEOs and CTOs nowadays? I thpught the cult around Steve Jobs was, bad it pales in comparison to today.

As soon as one person becomes more important than the team, as in the team starts to be structured around said person instead of with the person, that person should be replaced. Because otherwise, the team will not be functioning properly without the "star player" nor is the team more the sum of its members anymore...

[HlessClaudesman]

People love to pick sides then retroactively rationalise that decision. None of us reading about it have the facts required to make a rational judgement. So it's Johnny vs Amber time.

[Closi]

While your post sounds like something that would be true, there are loads of examples of where companies have thrived under a clear vision from a specific person.

The example of Steve Jobs used in the above post is probably a prime example - Apple just wouldn’t be the company it is today without that period of his singular vision and drive.

Of course they struggled after losing him, but the current version of Apple that has lived with Jobs and lost him is probably better than the hypothetical version of Apple where he never returned.

Great teams are important, but great teams plus great leadership is better.

[_factor]

Newsflash. Altman is no Steve Jobs.

[Closi]

Newsflash. I didn't claim he was.

[hef19898]

Steve Jobs is actually a great example: He was, sucessfully at each time, replaced twice, once aftwr he almost ran Apple into the ground and then after his death. In fact, he shoes how to build an org that explicitly does not depend on war star player.