His superman reference to Nietzsche is totally wrong. Overmen weren't supposed to be super-duper great, productive people. He was making a really complex argument about human beings shedding their animal nature and antiquated morality to ascend into a new kind of intelligent being.
He doesn't make any kind of argument anyway -- pointing out that some leaders of companies are more effective than others does nothing to support the argument that complex forces are not at work.
I was hoping for more meat in the argument too, the plural of anecdote is not data. If Steve was the sole factor behind Apple's success, then why didn't Next take over the world too?
I'd be a lot more interested in the mechanics of how 'great men' make a difference. I'd argue in Apple's case Steve's biggest influence was building a culture fanatical about the customer's experience, replicating versions of himself across the company. He's also been amazingly hands-on about the details of the business.
Most fans of the great man theory in business seem to be looking for a quick fix, a savior they can recruit. That leads to hiring apparent visionaries who spend too much time thinking deep thoughts about strategy, and not enough on the operational and personnel nuts-and-bolts of the company.
You could make a strong argument they did. Next and Apple is often cited as a case where the bought company took over the buyer.
The Disney/Pixar deal might count as well. After a falling-out between the companies due in large part to Disney wanting more creative control, Disney eventually caved and "bought" Pixar in an all-stock deal, with top people from Pixar being put in charge of Disney's animation division and the majority shareholder of Pixar becoming by far the largest single Disney shareholder--more than the next five largest combined, if memory serves me.
(Extra credit: Guess who the aforementioned shareholder is.)
I did hesitate when I wrote that, knowing that modern Apple's DNA is pretty much pure Next. The history of the Next doesn't lend much to the theory that Steve's presence is all you need to make a successful company though.
It's a tricky argument though, he really is such a remarkable CEO it's hard to say he's not proof of the great man theory! I just can't think of anyone else whose great man status can't be plausibly explained by survivorship bias.
Give me a break. Next was in the negative when Apple acquired it (Next was bought for $350 million + Apple agreed to cover Next's $50 million in debt). Moreover Apple was planning to buy Jean-Louise Gasse's Be (creators of the BeOS) first. Only after Be demanded more money than Apple was willing to pay did they then go to Next.
Also remember, Next failed to even get an IPO off the ground. They tried but interest was so low that it was cancelled.
Jobs maneuvered Gil Amelio out like a pro but that's an example of office politics not a statement on the value of Next.
I also grated at seeing that reference to Nietzsche in there. Probably because I recently read On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, but still. Nietzsche is probably Top 3 on the list of 'most abused philosophers.'
Alternative theory: Many people of the type he talks about 1) were lucky to be in the right place at the right time, 2) had strong, effective organizations working for them, 3) were smart and competent enough to make effective use of #1 and #2, 4) stepped down while they were near or at their peak.
Most people, no matter how great, are not going to have #1 and getting #2 is difficult and unreliable.
Too much focus on the traits and actions of individuals is probably a result of the general cognitive bias to cast events in terms of structured narratives with well-defined causes and effects.
It just shows how dumb are large organizations. Single human being doing educated guesses can be smarter than corporate entity.
Great leaders perceived efficiency is effect of two factors. One, they manage to actually strongly influence what happens in their organizations. And two, they are not dumb.
At least one of these just must be false for Steve Ballmer.
He doesn't make any kind of argument anyway -- pointing out that some leaders of companies are more effective than others does nothing to support the argument that complex forces are not at work.