> perhaps their real value is their unbending discipline and
> training to impose that on others in a mechanistic way?
One issue, especially in tech companies, is that many of the people who are there have _no formal training in anything_ (let alone technology, but I digress) and so for the 98% of what has to happen for a product/company to come together usually gets made up on the fly; often with disasterous results. This is a big part of the subtext of Steve's rant: if you don't know what you're doing, what you ultimately do "might work out" but the chances are just as good that you'll come up with a hodge-podge of self-inconsistent crap. His claim is that Google is more measured on a lot of things, and perhaps that comes from knowing what they wanted to do, but it's sort of easy to look back and (to take an example) say: if you let individual teams do their own hiring, you'll wind up with an inconsistent base of people. If your business plan is longer than 18 months, you'll likely do more job shuffling *internally* than you had new-hires, so being consistent at the beginning gives you a lot of leverage later.
So: people who have learned the lesson of, say, "Make a plan; train the plan; execute the plan" are *WAY* ahead of most people in tech companies, even ones whose business cards say "Project Manager" ... which is not to say it's always a good idea to hire an ex-Ranger. I've seen my share of tough guys who were in way over their heads but the CEO thought they were cool.
And don't get me started about Swiss banks or Israeli tech companies where you aren't considered seriously unless you've got stripes in your closet.
/jordan